Resident Evil 5

By Dan Whitehead Published 5 February, 2009

Down with the sickness. Chapters 1 to 3 dissected.

You know who the unsung hero of the Resident Evil series is? The guy who moans "Resident Eeeeeevil" at the start of each game. I like to think that it's the same person, and that for each sequel he puts years of practice into making each number sound as spooky as possible.

Loading up a preview build of Resident Evil 5, containing the first three chapters of the game, that booming introduction is one of the few elements still remaining from the traditional template that defined the series throughout the 90s. Following on from Resident Evil 4, this fifth sequel (actually the nineteenth in the series!) is far more action shooter than survival horror, and most of its triumphs and failures stem from trying to serve these two goals at the same time. Much like the bizarre T-virus mutated creatures, this is a series mid-evolution.

Set ten years after the events of the original game, Resident Evil 5 opens with Chris Redfield barrelling through the African savannah on his way to meet with a contact. He's now working for the BSAA, or Bioterrorism Security Assessment Alliance, and is investigating reports that Umbrella's viral weapons have ended up in the hands of African ne'er-do-wells. Arriving in a small town, he's met by Sheva Alomar, his pert and lovely African counterpart from the BSAA and the second playable character for the new co-op based gameplay design.

Chris and Sheva meet with an informant in a butcher's shop, who tells them they need to find a man called Irving. Off you trot into the winding (but linear) slum streets, stepping over mangled animal remains and examining gruesome slaughterhouse leftovers, until you get your first glimpse of the Majini, the Plagas-infected locals who are the African equivalent of Resident Evil 4's Los Ganados. As the first attack wave swarms towards you, there's clearly no chance of fending them off with your limited ammo reserves this early in the game, so you flee to a nearby house and escape through an underground tunnel.

'Resident Evil 5' Screenshot 1

This wormy nightmare is the first boss fight of the game. You'll soon cook him down to size.

You emerge at the start of a scene that will be familiar to everyone who downloaded the demo. It's the Public Assembly area and things play out exactly as you've seen. You now realise that the man being beheaded is your butcher shop contact, but you're soon fortifying yourself against the next wave of bloodthirsty Majini slaves and the lumbering axe-wielding executioner. The first major action scene of the game, much is familiar from Resident Evil 4. You barricade doors with bookcases, and later kick down ladders to escape their clutches, while exploding barrels and choke points provide carefully placed opportunities to thin the herd.

Playing offline, Sheva falls under AI control and the results are mixed. Assuming she has the items in her inventory, she's able to hand over ammo for the current weapon you're using, heal you when your health is dangerously low, and even combine red and green herbs automatically to create more powerful healing items. However, she's also a bit dim when it comes to combat, and since her death spells game-over even in single-player mode, she can be as much hindrance as help. In the midst of a scrum, the sight of her blithely standing around while the executioner readies his axe right beside her is most unwelcome.

'Resident Evil 5' Screenshot 2

Chris Redfield, now looking like the mutant offspring of Sylvester Stallone and Harry Connick Jr.

The controls, inevitably, will be the subject of much debate. You can now strafe, and there are four different control set-ups to choose from. Capcom promised "Gears-inspired action controls" but this is a dubious boast. The inability to move and shoot at the same time was originally because of technical limitations, but with the game now an over-the-shoulder co-op shooter more in the style of Army of Two or Kane & Lynch, the decision to stick with the rigid run, fast turn, shoot, repeat approach to combat seems more bloody-minded than creatively inspired. It's not unworkable, and it may be traditional for Resident Evil, but it does leave the game feeling clunky and inelegant in contemporary context. Maybe Capcom needs to have faith that the series has endured for reasons besides the way the characters move.

Chapter 1 continues in this vein, through various streets, houses and buildings, until you reach an underground facility, the location of your first boss encounter. It's a gloopy, wormy mass that takes on a vaguely humanoid shape. It's already polished off another BSAA squad, but luckily for you it decides to attack in a room with a giant incinerator oven at one end. Luring the beast into the oven is the obvious solution, but the timing is tricky since the doors take a while to close, giving the monster a chance to slither back out again if you strike too late.

So ends the first chapter, and you get the chance to restock your weapons (but not your ammo) from a menu. No sign of the merchant from Resident Evil 4, but you can sell trinkets, gems and treasures discovered on your travels to earn more gold. You can also rearrange your inventory, putting essential weapons and items in the left, right, up and down slots for fast access using the d-pad.

Chapter 2 brings the first encounter with infected dogs, which often prove tougher to kill than the human enemies, and leads you through a booby-trapped storage yard to a broken bridge where fast reactions are required to prevent a maniacal Majini from running you down in a truck. Survive that encounter and it's down into the sewers, where you're up against more dogs as well as flying mutants that hatch from dead bodies. There's then another swarm battle in a dockside market, before you reach the Shanty Town section which formed the second half of the demo.

Then it's down into some mines for the first true co-op part of the game. There have been a few moments where Sheva is able to be boosted up to a higher level and take an alternate route, but in the mines teamwork is essential, because one of you has to carry a large battery-powered lamp while the other provides covering fire. Played with a human partner it's probably a real blast, although when you have to rely on Virtual Sheva's rather flaky responses it's hit-and-miss. If you're the one doing the shooting, she's not always illuminating the areas you need to see. If you're handling the lamp, there's no guarantee that she'll do a good job of shooting the enemies. In a game where ammo is at a premium, watching her waste shots can be frustrating.

Once out of the mines, the game continues to deviate from its established formula. You finally get to meet Irving, a weasel-faced villain who talks like James Cagney. Before you can arrest him, he's spirited away by a mysterious woman in a bird-like mask. Clues suggest they're headed for a nearby oilfield, so you battle your way along a cliff-face for the next big boss fight against a giant mutant bat-scorpion. It's a tricky encounter, and once again shows up the limitations of the partner AI and real-time inventory. Sheva has a habit of picking items up without your permission, but if she grabs an explosive she'll hoard it rather than use it and cause you damage.

'Resident Evil 5' Screenshot 3

Chapter 3's oil refinery, where Chris and Sheva must keep Josh safe from harm while he hacks their exit.

This is problematic, since you need to use proximity mines to stun the creature and if Sheva has grabbed them you need to stand next to her, open the inventory, navigate over to her side, select the mines, request them, wait for her to hand them over, open the inventory again and equip them. It's a horribly long-winded process, and sometimes proves fatal when there's huge monster stomping around.

It's also a fight clearly designed for co-op play, since the creature's weak spot is only vulnerable from behind. One character must lead it away while the other shoots. Stun it with the mines and you get a longer window of opportunity to whittle down its hefty defences. "We need to trap it between us. I'll take the rear!" exclaims AI Sheva. Except she doesn't. I ran around wasting ammo for several minutes wondering where she was, before realising she was still jogging along behind me. You can change her stance from defensive to aggressive, but the difference is minimal. Playing on Normal difficulty, it's very easy to run out of ammo and explosives while trying to get your computerised partner to assist in the fight. It's rather telling that when this section was last demoed to the press, the infinite ammo cheat was activated.

'Resident Evil 5' Screenshot 4

The facial animations are often amazing, and help to bring some depth to an otherwise ludicrous yarn.

Beat the monster and you're thrown into a chase sequence where you use mounted machineguns to mow down Majini attacking from motorbikes and trucks, and this leads straight into another boss fight against an El Gigante from Resident Evil 4. Once again, you're using fixed gun emplacements to blast the Plagas pods on his body, while dodging his attacks using quick-time event button prompts.

It's all incredibly action-packed and breathless in its pace, served up with the polished production values you'd expect from Capcom, but nothing up to this point has felt very Resident Evilly. There have been almost constant gunfights, but nothing you could really call a puzzle and no adventure elements at all. That changes slightly in Chapter 3 as you venture into the marshlands in pursuit of Irving and must locate four quarters of a plaque to open a doorway. In the Resident Evil games of old these pieces would be hidden away, unearthed by moving statues or matching patterns. Here, they're just marked on your map and you zip off to find them in a rather nifty airboat. It feels like the vestigial remains of the old Resident Evil, paying lip service to a more varied experience, but with little interest in developing anything beyond the gunplay.

Somewhat ironically, it's at this point that the story really starts to kick in, and where fans will start to learn how the events of Resident Evil 5 tie in with the dense narrative tangle of the series. There are the usual melodramatic plot twists and cheesy revelations, but I'm not about to spoil any details. It shouldn't take much mental effort from fans to work out what might be involved.

There's a battle through an oil refinery where you're joined by a third character, Josh, followed by an airboat chase during which you have to jump ashore to find the buttons that will open the gates to continue. It all culminates in an even bigger boss battle against an aquatic creature, once again relying on conveniently placed mounted weapons to blast the weak spots to bits.

And so ends Chapter 3, and our time with the game. It's never less than visually impressive and the set-pieces are delivered with all the movie-style aplomb you'd expect. The controls are a struggle at first, but it's not difficult to accommodate the quirks with the aiming speed turned up and the fourth control option selected. Where the game seems weakest is in its reliance on a wonky AI model for the single-player, and a noticeable lack of scares. There are plenty of gory moments, some agreeably wacky monsters and enormous amounts of bullets fired, but the series' famous sense of dread and horror-movie pacing has been completely ditched in favour of all-out action. That your character is wandering around in broad daylight, with a constant and shapely companion, hardly helps to nurture a feeling of paranoid terror.

There's also the spectre of the old racism debate, hovering the background. That debate is only going to get louder and more urgent once the game is released, and is being covered beyond the cosy world of the specialist gaming press, since there's imagery in here that goes beyond the general air of foreign menace that caused a ruckus in the first trailers.

One of the first things you see in the game, seconds after taking control of Chris Redfield, is a gang of African men brutally beating something in a sack. Animal or human, it's never revealed, but these are not infected Majini. There are no red bloodshot eyes. These are ordinary Africans, who stop and stare at you menacingly as you approach. Since the Majini are not undead corpses, and are capable of driving vehicles, handling weapons and even using guns, it makes the line between the infected monsters and African civilians uncomfortably vague. Where Africans are concerned, the game seems to be suggesting, bloodthirsty savagery just comes with the territory.

'Resident Evil 5' Screenshot 5

The mini-map lets you keep track of your partner - though there's rarely anywhere for them to go.

Later on, there's a cut-scene of a white blonde woman being dragged off, screaming, by black men. When you attempt to rescue her, she's been turned and must be killed. If this has any relevance to the story it's not apparent in the first three chapters, and it plays so blatantly into the old clichés of the dangerous "dark continent" and the primitive lust of its inhabitants that you'd swear the game was written in the 1920s. That Sheva neatly fits the approved Hollywood model of the light-skinned black heroine, and talks more like Lara Croft than her thickly-accented foes, merely compounds the problem rather than easing it. There are even more outrageous and outdated images to be found later in the game, stuff that I was honestly surprised to see in 2009, but Capcom has specifically asked that details of these scenes remain under wraps for now, whether for these reasons we don't know.

There will be plenty of people who refuse to see anything untoward in this material. "It wasn't racist when the enemies were Spanish in Resident Evil 4," goes the argument, but then the Spanish don't have the baggage of being stereotyped as subhuman animals for the past two hundred years. It's perfectly possible to use Africa as the setting for a powerful and troubling horror story, but when you're applying the concept of people being turned into savage monsters onto an actual ethnic group that has long been misrepresented as savage monsters, it's hard to see how elements of race weren't going to be a factor.

All it will take is for one mainstream media outlet to show the heroic Chris Redfield stamping on the face of a black woman, splattering her skull, and the controversy over Manhunt 2 will seem quaint by comparison. If we're going to accept this sort of imagery in games then questions are going be asked, these questions will have merit, and we're going to need a more convincing answer than "lol it's just a game."

Resident Evil 5 is due out for PS3 and Xbox 360 on 13th March.

Picture of Dan.

About Dan Whitehead

Dan has been writing for Eurogamer since 2006 and specialises in RPGs, shooters and games for children. His bestest game ever is Julian Gollop's Chaos.

Read more articles from Dan by visiting the Dan Whitehead archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (312) Latest comment 6 months ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • bestforever7 #1 3 years ago

    So not great then.....?

  • RedSparrows #2 3 years ago

    Sounds 'not as good as it should be', but we'll see.

  • RedSparrows #3 3 years ago

    + in b4 cliched and broken racism debate.

  • coderkind #4 3 years ago

    After playing the demo I missed the control scheme of the Wii version of RE4.

  • Bangaioh #5 3 years ago

    Not sure about this one. I've been a RE fan since the first episode appeared on PSX, I've tried the demo but it feels a bit dated mostly in the controls (while the graphics that are good for me).
    I won't pre-order for sure (as I did for every other episode, including Code Veronica) but I will give it chance if the reviews convince me.

  • JayeM #6 3 years ago

    I find this article racist.

  • coolbritannia #7 3 years ago

    Nice DotD reference.

  • Eraysor #8 3 years ago

    I didn't even like Resi 4 that much, and trying the demo pretty much removed all possibility of this game actually being enjoyable for me.

  • Salt_The_Fries #9 3 years ago

    I first played Resident Evil in 1998 (actually Resident Evil 2) I was a long-time fan for many years until uninspired transformation to new POV surfaced, and now it looks like we have more of the same, I played the demo and hated it, it was a rudimentary and outdated experience for me. However, from this hands-on, it sounds more optimistic than I would imagine, I expected harsher reception. I still might give it a try, though, but definetly not day-one purchase and not pre-ordering it. I can live completely without it. I might check out to see how far mighty have fallen this time, if the game would pleasantly surprise me (which I doubt) - then that's good.

  • coolbritannia #10 3 years ago

    I'll wait till i have the game to pass judgement on whether it's racist or not, but I find the examples of racism in the article to be purile at best.

  • drumbaby #11 3 years ago

    Capcom in 'not as good as when brand x exclusive' shocker. Since they've gone multiplatform a bit of the 'suck factor' has crept in. DMC and RE, I'm looking at you....Maybe going multiplatform is a way of earning the same dosh overall, but with lesser games?

  • Gaol #12 3 years ago

    "All it will take is for one mainstream media outlet to show the heroic Chris Redfield stamping on the face of a black woman, splattering her skull, and the controversy over Manhunt 2 will seem quaint by comparison"

    Actually I doubt it, I can't believe the mainstream press is as fickle as you lot. I mean are you suggesting that a white woman's skull being splattered is perfectly acceptable? Are we only allowed to splatter the skulls of our own race? Or if Chris were black, would he have discretion to splatter the skulls of anybody he chooses? Ludicrous.

    And do stop with the images of a supressed past. This is 2009. If a black man can be the leader of the free world, then I'm sure they've also earned the right to be represented as zombies in a completely fantastical horror videogame without throwing their toys out the pram. They certainly don't need defended by English journalists.

    As for the review, my moneys on them pandering to the haters with a low score, as if it suddenly dawned on every fucking person here that Resi controls are a bit fiddly. Resi 4? 10/10 best game evah!!!! Resi 5? 4/10 it doesn't play like teh Gays of War!!!!

  • klixman #13 3 years ago

    Code Veronica is my fave resi game, cant say I enjoyed the demo of this much. I think I will wait and see on this one.

  • Machiavellian #14 3 years ago

    Personally I enjoyed the demo but I played it co-op with a friend. Though the controls are definitely a pain in the butt, once i got use to them again, I had no trouble having fun taking down the infected. I will say that it appears that the game is best played co-op which I will have plenty of friends to play with. SinglePlayer looks like it will be a chore with the AI so I am thankful the game has co-op

    On the race issue, I will leave that alone for now. I am black and I have a wife born and raised from Africa. It was interesting to see her reaction when I was playing the game. The assessment from Dan is pretty spot on and you do see a number of visuals that give you pause and make you wonder what the designers where thinking about. I know from watching a lot of Anime that there is a perception the Japanese have about black people and I am sure there is a perception they have about Africans that will be revealed in this game. Either way, I cannot wait to play the game.
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 00:58

  • Jonathan_Fakenham #15 3 years ago

    More and more I'm thinking I'm going to skip this game, and instead go back and replay Resident Evil 4 as I've been meaning to, and finally bust open that unopened Wii-copy that's been sitting around for a while.

    Bad singleplayer-buddy AI in a more coop and action-focused game kind of just sealed the deal for me.

  • klixman #16 3 years ago

    I can see how the game could be perceived as being somewhat racist, but I just assumed everything was cannon fodder, except for that nice bit of ass and titties. Is it pc to say that? edit- spelling :)twice
    Edited by 2 at 05/02/09 @ 00:54

  • XAleX360 #17 3 years ago

    I'm quite speechless. Dan, could you care to explain what were you trying to say in the last batch of the article? That Capcom (or anyone for that matter) can't imagine a story in which there are "black" people turned as monsters, after what, just 15 games of the series (counting spin-offs, of course) in which the only monsters you found were "white"?
    You seem to be concerned of what "people" will think of the game from the outside. I happen to think that maybe, just maybe, we (I'm a writer for a quite renown videogaming website in Italy) as journalists should be the ones to ensure uninformed people get to know that this is far from a racist opera or game, that the saga has been alive since almost 15 years all of which spent killing "white" zombies in the US first and lately in Europe; now, the Japanese developers famously known as Capcom have decided that this one will be set in Africa, because of their free willed creative imagination and nothing else, and it just makes sense that many zombies are "black" (and besides, there are quite a lot of white AND arabic zombies mixed in there after the first racism charges, at least judging from the demos). Maybe the next time will be the time we kill "yellow zombies", who knows? And should WE care?

    My 2 cents.

    Oh, and by the way, game controls are really clunky and I fully agree with you on that, my preview is very similar to yours in regard to the game. I really hope they reboot the series once again with Resident Evil 6, it darn needs it - though I still think RE5 will be a good ride.
    Edited by 2 at 05/02/09 @ 01:00

  • klixman #18 3 years ago

    What about tranny zombies? Could be interesting.

  • Machiavellian #19 3 years ago

    Racist no, perception yes. In other words when you have a perception of something and it's the only thing you know, then you cannot really see it as racist. The word is thrown around very easily but a lot of times it does not fit the situation.

    The reason I come to this understanding is actually from my own wife. In Africa, they are only fed the bad things that Black Americans do in America. When I first met her, we had a long talk and from the information she had about blacks in America, we were thugs, killers, baby makers etc. This is the perception that is fostered by media and thus this is the perception she had when she came to America. Is she racist because her information was only one sided??? The same can be said for the Japanese. They are probably only fed information that do not highlight the good things from black Africans and I am sure it shows in RE5.

  • Machiavellian #20 3 years ago

    @XAleX360
    I believe you did not read Dan's text properly. He clearly state that the events he thought that might raise a question were from characters that were not infected. You can easily make a case for the infected but if you show brutality for just the inhabitants themselves it will raise question. Since I have not witness the scenes I have no opinion at this moment where they stand.

  • galerian86 #21 3 years ago

    I think the guy who said 'Resident Evil' had already recorded all the number available for the series after RE2. They are just using that

  • local_celebrity #22 3 years ago

    More to the point, whose biceps are bigger? Chris Redfield's or 50 Cents'?

    My, they're both such fine specimens; it's so hard to choose between them! I've spent many sleepness nights mulling on this issue. But I've finally come to to the conclusion that Chris' guns are bigger.

    In other news, Resident Weevil 5 is totally unplayable.

    So there.

  • Nithron #23 3 years ago

    No sign of the merchant from Resident Evil 4

    No sale from me then.

  • lavalant #24 3 years ago

    Good preview, I wish it hadn't tailed off into some racist spiel. I think gamers could care less about any so called racist element, we'll leave that to the PC media and the liberal fascists to moan about.

    Gamers are only interested in finding out if Resident Evil 5 is worth getting on release, and this backs up what most long time resident evil fans felt about the demo. The developers have sold out the franchise and ramped up the action, removed the horror, kept the awkward controls and to top it off stuck in forced co-op with some dumb AI who wastes all your ammo and causes the game to end through no fault of your own. A bargin bin purchase for sure.

  • Zappa #25 3 years ago

    this game is a massive fail.

    should score like a 8.

  • chessboxer #26 3 years ago

    The PS3 demo looked great but the controls are awful. This will not be purchased by me. Meh/10.

  • PrivateFloyd #27 3 years ago

    the only thing i have picked up on is that it does not feel like resident evil. I loved resi 1/2/3 and did not finish 4 as it was a total departure to what i know and loved. 5 seems even worse....

    i will still probably rent this from lovefilm but it certainly is not a purchase from me : (

    code veronica remake for 360/PS3 for me please.....

  • Razorus #28 3 years ago

    I agree with Gaol on this. The racism thing is ridiculous.
    How many Nazis, Arabs, Commies, South Americans and Spaniards have we killed? If you ask me, it's about time games picked on someone else. As for the imagery, I can understand that it may look a bit "naughty naughty". A group of black "savages" beating something in a sack, probably raping and pillaging and all that jazz.
    I was under the impression this game was set in Africa. In a shanty town area. Africa is well known for many things, including raping and pillaging. Especially West Africa where this happens to be set. I think Capcom are going for the Hollywood style cinematic Africa that we all know and love from Blood Diamond and Hotel Rwanda. You know, the ones where black guys rape and pillage and act like barbarians.
    Ok, perhaps it's not a 100% accurate and fair portrayal of Africa. But the imagery I've seen so far suggests that it is inspired by Hollywood movies, many of which are based on true stories. Getting with the times ftw. Political correctness gone mad ftl.

  • Eraysor #29 3 years ago

    Now I come to think of it, I think Capcom should destroy this game engine and make a nice new one with good third-person controls, and then make Dino Crisis 4. Dino Crisis 2 was a far better game than all of the Resi games combined ^_^

  • ademkermad #30 3 years ago

    That must be a typo. Don't you mean down with the 'shitness'

    *checks comments quickly for other cheesy puns*

  • Machiavellian #31 3 years ago

    Man, I am seriously wondering if this is the same site that went ape shit whe the Wii version of 4 received a low score.

  • HermitArcader #32 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • mainaman #33 3 years ago

    Oh,black non-zombies do a savage act in an African shanty town and because of the non-PC perceptions about Africans,the racism and the past(and present!) of the black race Capcom are racist and Sheva's light complexion makes it even worse,ignoring the fact that 99.9% of the ''R&B'' music videos feature black artists looking almost as white as the snowman in my garden.

  • kissthestick #34 3 years ago

    "Later on, there's a cut-scene of a white blonde woman being dragged off, screaming, by black men"

    Must Buy now

  • HermitArcader #35 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • cooper #36 3 years ago

    Eurogamer sinks to a new low. I miss the EG from 5+ years ago so much.
    Even Kotaku sounds more professional than you guys these days. But hey, you must be getting lots of hits with "articles" like this and your usual flame-bait "news". Congrats.

  • JetSetWilly #37 3 years ago

    Sounds like the demo is in a fact a reasonable barometer of the final game.

  • Rushy #38 3 years ago

    Awful article. I wanted a games preview not a racism debate.

  • dr_faulk #39 3 years ago

    What an excellent article! Well done. Nail on the head, and all that.

  • Pirotic #40 3 years ago

    Awful article. I wanted a games preview not a racism debate.

    +1

  • trousers #41 3 years ago

    Capcom should quickly reskin all the Maniji as Golliwogs - that should stop any negative PR - surely?

  • bad09 #42 3 years ago

    Not that I care that much anyway, but when I was actually having my love of RE murdered again with RE4.5 the LAST thing on my mind was "I'm shooting blacks", however there are many in this world will find offence purely because they are black and whitey cannot be seen doing anything bad to black people, chinks, towelheads, nazis, aliens, other whiteys, animals - all fine though.

    I'll never forget that "It's training young white men to hate blacks" remark, idiots. Dan is right, there will be a shitstorm when the ignorant people who like to divide us by colour see this game. Sadly....

    / goes and watches Zulu.....

  • m0thr4 #43 3 years ago

    Awful article. I wanted a games preview not a racism debate.

    -1

    You got both. You didn't have to read the final paragraphs.

  • darm #44 3 years ago

    Is it possible to play co-op offline using 2nd controller?

  • m0thr4 #45 3 years ago

    I agree with Gaol on this. The racism thing is ridiculous.
    How many Nazis, Arabs, Commies, South Americans and Spaniards have we killed? If you ask me, it's about time games picked on someone else.


    So you're you're saying that Africans as are bad as Nazis and are therefore fair game?

    As for the imagery, I can understand that it may look a bit "naughty naughty". A group of black "savages" beating something in a sack, probably raping and pillaging and all that jazz.
    I was under the impression this game was set in Africa. In a shanty town area. Africa is well known for many things, including raping and pillaging. Especially West Africa where this happens to be set. I think Capcom are going for the Hollywood style cinematic Africa that we all know and love from Blood Diamond and Hotel Rwanda. You know, the ones where black guys rape and pillage and act like barbarians.

    That's the Africa you love, is it? You sick fuck. The vast majority of the countries of Africa are actually peaceful and civilised, not that you care.


    Ok, perhaps it's not a 100% accurate and fair portrayal of Africa. But the imagery I've seen so far suggests that it is inspired by Hollywood movies, many of which are based on true stories. Getting with the times ftw. Political correctness gone mad ftl.


    So you admit that your knowledge of Africa is limited on Hollywood movies. I can only assume you've never actually visited a single country in Africa yourself. And from that negative portrayal in the media you have stereotyped an entire continent...

    ...which is exactly what racism is: automatically stereotyping an entire race, based on the limited negative information you have received.

  • JohnnyWashnGo #46 3 years ago

    Capcom: Please let us configure x-axis inversion when moving characters...

  • siro #47 3 years ago

    Racism there or not, I can't believe this actually passed USK in Germany. It's killing like it has never been before.

  • m0thr4 #48 3 years ago

    Finally on a more troubling note, I suspect that a large number of gamers around the world are probably racist or ignorant, or already have these stereotypes about Africans and Africa deeply ingraved due in our cultures.

    I don't think gamers should be singled out especially, as our media push these stereotypes on us already. It doesn't help when video games back them up though.
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 08:51

  • Beek4257 #49 3 years ago

    I'm a big fan off RE and I really, really tried to find something to like about the demo, but just couldn't.
    This demo has me worried about the full game and that's not what it's supposed to do, right?

    Based on the demo and this preview I'm actually considering not buying RE5. God I hope I'm wrong ...

  • chris_ace #50 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 11:55:13 13-12-2011

  • DFawkes #51 3 years ago

    No matter how I count them, I can't get this to be the 19th in the series. Friendly warning, it's LIST TIME :D

    1. Resident Evil Zero
    2. Resident Evil
    3. Resident Evil 2
    4. Resident Evil 3: Nemesis
    5. Resident Evil 4
    6. Resident Evil: Survivor
    7. Resident Evil: Survivor 2 Code Veronica
    8. Resident Evil: Dead Aim
    9. Resident Evil: Code Veronica
    10. Resident Evil Outbreak
    11. Resident Evil Outbreak File#2
    12. Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles
    13. Resident Evil Gaiden
    14. Resident Evil Degeneration
    15. Resident Evil Assault the Nightmare
    16. Resident Evil: Confidential Report
    17. Resident Evil: Genesis

    I've not counted any of the following, since they're just different editions of others, but right enough if you count RE: DS that'd make 5 the 19th. I'd still argue it's a remake, and there are more than one debatable ones above.

    Resident Evil: Directors Cut
    Resident Evil: Code Veronica X
    Resident Evil 4 Wii Edition
    Resident Evil Deadly Silence

  • Gaol #52 3 years ago

    "Dan is right, there will be a shitstorm when the ignorant people who like to divide us by colour see this game. Sadly.... "

    Actually no. Dan Whitehead & co are responsible for actively encouraging a shitstorm, because it's good copy and probably endears them to their pal N'Gai. If the mainstream press do pick it up, it'll because of the irresponsible shit stirring by the videogames press.

  • UncleLou #53 3 years ago

    Sounds a bit like single-player was ruined by the recent coop hysteria.

  • JohnnyWashnGo #54 3 years ago

    Actually the more I think about it, the more this game seems fundamentally broken in many ways.

    Resident Evil game, even the ones which had more than one playable character, were about the single player game... the struggle between you and an army of undead was the key to making the game exciting and occasionally scary.

    The reliance on your partner for a good part of the game, and the fact that your partner more often than not gets in the way when playing solo, is a real pain. Takling the chainsaw guy in the shanty town demo was made more complicated than it need be due to bloody sheva standing in my line of sight all the time.

    The control system is shafted. Version B seems to be the only one that I can use without walking into walls constantly or aiming in the air all the time.

    The real time inventory system is the worst feature update for this game. As the article mentioned, swapping items between the two characters, especially in the heat of battle, is comical at best and tragic at worst. And she insists on taking all the bloody items that I want to get and then using them herself :(

    Without wanting to sound like an OAP, this is not the resident evil I remember or wanted.

    Looks nice though ;)

  • UncleLou #55 3 years ago

    Actually no. Dan Whitehead & co are responsible for actively

    I find ignorant people who refuse to even see that there might be an issue and something worth debating a far bigger problem. Exactly the naive "it's only a game lol" crowd.

  • guernican #56 3 years ago

    "Actually I doubt it, I can't believe the mainstream press is as fickle as you lot. I mean are you suggesting that a white woman's skull being splattered is perfectly acceptable? Are we only allowed to splatter the skulls of our own race? Or if Chris were black, would he have discretion to splatter the skulls of anybody he chooses? Ludicrous. "

    You have missed the point so comprehensively that I'll be coming back to this post for weeks to chuckle at it.

  • MMJoe #57 3 years ago

    Didn't enjoy the demo at all - very clunky.

    Like it or not, Resi 5 will probably be held up by the mainstream media (Daily Mail anyone?) as an exampe of why videogames are a nasty, horrible and corrupting plauge on modern society. Unfortunately, Resi 5 does seem to be quite willing to utilise some very nasty racial stereotypes. Whether this is intentional or not is a moot point; Capcom are going to be facing some very difficult questions and from what I've seen so far, I don't think they'll be able to give any particularly reassuring answers.

  • m0thr4 #58 3 years ago

    I find ignorant people who refuse to even see that there might be an issue and something worth debating a far bigger problem. Exactly the naive "it's only a game lol" crowd.

    +1

  • Eighthours #59 3 years ago

    Hmmm... some were criticising the demo for being TOO multi-racial for an African setting! Interesting.

  • 1simen1 #60 3 years ago

    Where is the Racism contoversy over the 50 cent games? Now thats steriotyping for ya.

    The only real racists are people finding games like Rez5 racist.

  • kangarootoo #61 3 years ago

    "seems more bloody-minded than creatively inspired"

    That sums up much of the series in my mind. Didn't realise there were 19 editions. It makes some of the frankly appaling system design all the more unforgivable.

  • Gaol #62 3 years ago

    "You have missed the point so comprehensively that I'll be coming back to this post for weeks to chuckle at it. "

    Ah claims of a higher understanding with no counter argument. If there's a cohesive 'point' being made in that part of the article please explain. /files under arrogant tosser.

  • GreyBeard #63 3 years ago

    I can't speak for anyone else, but honestly if it requires a human co-op partner to get the game to play well, I'm not really interested. A compromised single-player experience is not acceptable for a RE title. Not for me anyway.


  • Dynamism #64 3 years ago

    Not going to get into the whole racism debate as this is hardly the forum to discuss such a sensitive topic, however, I did like Dan's article. Resident Evil 4 was a very good 8/10, but incredibly overrated (best game of the last generation, my arse!) and although it took the series into a different direction visually, it was still saddled with the problems from the very first game, namely, the 'tank' controls and ridiculously comical puzzles. It also removed the fear element, from a series that was viewed as the standard bearer for 'Survival horror' and was not atmospheric in the slightest - RE2 (best in series) Silent Hill 1-4 and the Project Zero games have iit curb-stomped in that department.

    Still, I'm sure '5' will be a gorgeous, thrill-a-minute action title and I'll still pick it up.

    William Birkin > Saddler, Salazar and co.

  • Thunderbolt #65 3 years ago

    Back in the early '00s I played the Resident Evil game with the lightgun (not sure if it was Survivor)

    And that had horrendous controls BUT it still was more playable than the demo!

  • silver-jon #66 3 years ago

    No merchant ?! Disaster. "Wodrryaboyin ?" is one of the best phrases ever uttered. As for his haggling skills "I'll buy it at a high price". Genius.

  • Evolution #67 3 years ago

    @Dynamism

    Ever since Silent Hill came out, Resident Evil has always failed to be scary. Not counting the last two Western developed ones of course.

  • Postumo #68 3 years ago

    Horrid controls, clunky gameplay, RE4 deja vu...

    MEH

  • flaming-carrot #69 3 years ago

    Wow - Capcom, you seem to have failed

    Terrible clunky demo, for an apparently very clunky game. Next.

  • Fred_Titmus #70 3 years ago

    Will it be racist if Carol Thatcher plays it?

  • dominalien #71 3 years ago

    So, it seems the controls aren't the biggest problems with the game, after all. I wish I had a friend to play it with, now.

    And I guess I'll need to buy it as soon as it comes out, just in case it gets pulled from shelves after the media erupts in accusations of racism and copies start going for hundreds of whatever currency is fashionable at any given point on whatever auction site is on top these days.

    EDIT: bad sentence structure made even worse.
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 10:02

  • neonxaos #72 3 years ago

    Kudos to you, Dan, for not being afraid of attacking the issues at hand. Resi 5 is clearly not intended to racist, there's no way in Hell that Capcom could be that stupid. But the result can certainly be interpreted in certain non-flattering ways. Still, playing the demo, I seemed to be killing people of every possible race all the time - it's like they were having a multi-cultural gathering or something. I hope that the inevitable backlash over the game will not judge it completely out of context, but I think we all know that this won't be the case. However, we do get the chance to have the whole racism debate once again, and in a way, that is a healthy outcome. These things need to be out in the open - taboos are far more enduring if everyone averts their eyes from them.

    More to the point, as a gamer, I am disappointed with the demo. It seems to play exactly the same as Resi 4, but with the added hassle of item swapping and a useless AI companion (since I'm not really that keen on co-op in my scary single-player game, but perhaps having a friend around will make all the hurt go away), who really doesn't seem very interested in keeping her pretty head attached to her body. If only there was a revival mechanism instead of the Game Over screen. And then there's the general problem with the clunky controls - I feel like Chris is a damn forklift. If Capcom could do something about these two issues instead of insisting on the moronic idea that poor controls add to the tension, I would be happy. Proper game design adds to the tension, proper controls add to the playability. As it is, Resi 5 infuriates me far more than it scares me. Someone should send Capcom a copy of Dead Space for reference. But technically, Resi truly looks the part. I want to play it. I'm just not sure that it wants to let me.

  • BillyBrush #73 3 years ago

    Good point up there re the 50 cent game....that's Fiddly actually wanting to present an image which is undesirable though, but that game does appear to involve shooting A-rabs which no one has a problem with

  • Vice.Destroyer #74 3 years ago

    Good article, Dan.

  • Venkman90 #75 3 years ago

    Having the single player ruined by a mandotary AI bot will mean its a no go for me, make her invincible in single player ala COD4 yeah but to have a killable idiot dictating how far you get would annoy me to death, especially if its still checkpoint saves.

  • Rash' #76 3 years ago

    the biggest thing that concerns me is the apparent ignorance of the artistic direction and the heavy focus on action. the demo too felt less "RE" because it.

  • AlvySinger #77 3 years ago

    On another point about casual videogame racism, I tried once again to play Far Cry 2 last night but had to give up after a seemingly endless horde of Africans - white and black, so no issues there, - tried to mercilessly slaughter me on sight. What sort of message is that sending? Are all Africans, irrespective of skin colour, determined to gun down all newcomers to the continent?

    My favourite moment was driving into a small town marked with a health icon, thinking I might be able to heal my wounds, and then being assaulted by every resident of the community - forcing me to massacre them all.

    Shortly afterwards, a zebra looked at me funny - so I shot him too.

    Surely the African tourist board have something to say about all this stereotyping of its populace as gun-toting psychopaths. Plus, do their travel brochures now warn all foreigners to pack flamethrowers, just in case?


  • DFawkes #78 3 years ago

    Do you think they should have Devil May Cry-ised this? That was a concept for a new Resi game that got it's on series. A new action-horror series would've been nice, so the core Resi series could be left alone.

  • anomagnus #79 3 years ago

    look, i'll shoot anything, white, black, yellow, brown, orange or fucking pink

    i'm an equal opportunities murderer

    but this is bullshit. The claim that the Spanish weren't sub human monsters? I'm fairly sure that a few hundred years ago Spaniards weren't flavor of the month in Britain. The fact is, there isn't a country in Europe or Africa that hasn't at some point been victimized and enslaved by another country.

    Are those crimes forgotten because they happened before the enslavement of Africa? Who decides then when its appropriate to move on?




  • Gecks #80 3 years ago

    lol liberal guilt

  • kangarootoo #81 3 years ago

    "If Capcom could do something about these two issues instead of insisting on the moronic idea that poor controls add to the tension, I would be happy. Proper game design adds to the tension, proper controls add to the playability"

    Every time I read a comment like this it lifts my heart, because I honestly sit there sometimes listening to millions of people rave about ResEvil thinking "Is it just me, am I bad at my job? When I look at this control and system design and shudder am I in fact just completely out of touch with what gamers really want?".

    I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one who sees past the hero worship that is allowing this series to continue singing "LALALA" loudly with its fingers in its ears, year after year. I'm starting to Wonder if ResEvil isn't in Sonic's shoes 8 years ago.

  • JohnnyWashnGo #82 3 years ago

    Maybe Chris Redfield should have been replaced with Mugabe. Instead of fighting virus infected Africans, he could have been hunting those who didn't support him in the election. We could do away with the accusations of racism then and just call it the Zimbabwe simulator?

    Seriously, the racism issue is a non issue for me. I would be just as happy with the game had the lead being an african guy walking around the streets of London, kicking several shades of crap out of bowler hatted city gents... in fact I would have been really happy to play that game.

    People can read too much into things. Everybody has the ability to twist the facts to suit their own agendas. This game is probably being quite brave and not chosing to have red colour guys fighting blue coloured guys.

  • m0thr4 #83 3 years ago

    but this is bullshit. The claim that the Spanish weren't sub human monsters? I'm fairly sure that a few hundred years ago Spaniards weren't flavor of the month in Britain.

    What Dan's article was pointing out, if you had bothered to read it properly, is that right now, at the time this game is being released, the Spanish are not the targets of constant negative stereotyping by the media as brutal, uncivilised murderers, whereas Africans are... and this game appears to be reinforcing that particular stereotype.

  • Bartacus #84 3 years ago

    I watched a documentary a few weeks back on South Africa shanty towns (louis Theroux) the residents were more scary than anyone I saw while playing this demo. Well done Capcom for getting things so accurate.

    They dared set this game in the worst area of the world's most uncivilized continent what did you expect the outcome to be?

  • robg #85 3 years ago

    I suppose this doesn't bode well for my game idea: "Resident Gayville: I'm Here To Chew Bubblegum And Shoot The Homo Zombies In The Crotch...And I'm All Outta Nonlethal Ammo"
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 10:35

  • Eurytus #86 3 years ago

    Its quite amusing to see quite so many non-African people categorically stating that this game has no racism in it.

    And anomagnus, there is no comparison between the history of the Spanish and Africa. The Spanish were not habitually depicted as comparable to gorillas. They were not subjected to Aparteid. They were not treated as subhuman within living memory in the world's last remaining superpower.
    Nor is Spain routinely depicted by Hollywood as a brutal and violent place.

  • m0thr4 #87 3 years ago

    @Bartacus
    I watched a documentary a few weeks back on South Africa shanty towns (louis Theroux) the residents were more scary than anyone I saw while playing this demo. Well done Capcom for getting things so accurate.

    They dared set this game in the worst area of the world's most uncivilized continent what did you expect the outcome to be?

    So, from your position of complete ignorance, besides what you have seen on television, you have formed the view that Africa is "the world's most uncivilized continent".

    You sir, are a classic example of a racist.
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 10:41

  • Beek4257 #88 3 years ago

    "They dared set this game in the worst area of the world's most uncivilized continent what did you expect the outcome to be?"

    Eh? Oh dear ...

  • Eurytus #89 3 years ago

    "Eurogamer once again trying to stir the pot for some cheap hits like a tabloid rag. The game is not racist, I killed 10 million Amazonian black people in Uncharted because I'm a greedy white person who wants their treasure. Yet you never said that was racist. Yet here we are trying to save the world in Africa from Zombies and you want to play the race card. Fuck off and get off the PC train. RE5 is GOTY, you have no credibility and I fully expect you to mark the game down because you take offence to black zombies. "

    Idiot.

    Can you really not tell the difference between a game in which you shoot people of the ethnicity in which the game is set (a la Uncharted) and one in which the game depicts stereotypical examples of behaviour which tie into old, racist depictions of a location or people (which showing Africans beating someone in a sack or dragging off white women certainly does).

  • ChadSexington #90 3 years ago

    Racist? I think you're reading too much into it.

  • JohnnyWashnGo #91 3 years ago

    'Can you really not tell the difference between a game in which you shoot people of the ethnicity in which the game is set (a la Uncharted) and one in which the game depicts stereotypical examples of behaviour which tie into old, racist depictions of a location or people (which showing Africans beating someone in a sack or dragging off white women certainly does). '

    I don't know. I have a hard time thinking that Capcom, when developing the new game about the undead or virus infected, deliberately chose to root through the history books and pick some fine examples of African behaviour as reported by the white foreigners and use them as set pieces in their game. If I was working at Capcom and had some clout, I would be asking why the hell they were trying to cause a shitload of problems for the game and company by placing the game in Africa and making Africans look bad.

    Because of that, my opinion is that Capcom have been perhaps naive about the setting of the game or just think that it isn't a problem. I doubt they have tried to be racist on purpose as that would make no business sense whatsoever.

  • Gecks #92 3 years ago

    @Eurytus
    so, wait, you have to african to spot racism now?

    the japanese are relatively isolated culturally, so they don't tiptoe around this area like the west might. it's our guilt that's placing this videogame in the context of the slave trade/oppression.

    the "problem" here is everything to do with our reception of the imagery, rather than the imagery itself.

  • Thunderbolt #93 3 years ago

    Capcoms attitude towards Africa is a dated as their gameplay. ;)

  • Eurytus #94 3 years ago

    "@Eurytus
    so, wait, you have to african to spot racism now?"

    A bunch of people who have probably never suffered racism in their lives lecturing everyone else how something is not racist at all when it is so clearly questionable at the very best is about as trustworthy as listening to male high finance workers lecturing everyone on how the environment is not sexist at all.

  • robg #95 3 years ago

    See also the Mitchell and Webb sketch about the man phoned up by the news asking him, in his opinion, as someone whose wife was killed in a train accident, whether railway safety is good enough: "Well of course I don't think so, but you really should be asking someone less biased than me!"

    Experience doesn't equal objectivity. Racism is objectively bad; subjective experience won't make you more accurate; it may make you more sensitive to it (fair enough) but it may easily make you over-sensitive.

  • septimus #96 3 years ago

    Personally I have never liked the RE4 style controls, and I hate these ones just as much. But I could put up with it in RE4 as there were little to no other annoyances. With RE5 and Shitva I could scream sometimes. The AI is so utterly retarded. I haven't died once in the demo, but the AI gets killed constantly, even when I give her all the ammo.

    As to the racist issue, EG loves a bandwagon and will jump on it merrily no matter how inane it is.

  • Zomeguy #97 3 years ago

    "Because of that, my opinion is that Capcom have been perhaps naive about the setting of the game or just think that it isn't a problem. I doubt they have tried to be racist on purpose as that would make no business sense whatsoever.

    This is no longer a RE game, I think Capcom needs every publicity they can get.
    Also the issues are known since 2007. If they really had wanted to change the general perception, they could have easily IMHO. Even more so as most things criticized are not really vital to the game (as pointed out in the review) and could have been modified.

  • guernican #98 3 years ago

    Well, Gaol, I'd hoped it might inspire you to take another look at the problem. Not to worry.

    There is one big, throbbing issue here, and the article already mentions it. It's about the power of imagery and the colonial, post-colonial or apartheid context that surrounds it. Whether you like it or not, the images of a white man shattering a black woman's skull will be taken out of context: that's the metier of the tabloid press, surely? And this before we even get into the appalling civil wars in, to pick one or two names out of a very large hat, the Democratic Republic of Congo or the Ivory Coast. Or Rwanda. Or Sierra Leone.

    Then there's the context itself. Forget the Spaniards of RE4. What you're looking at here is a white clean-cut American and a Jackson-fied black girl carving up huge numbers of flesh-hungry Africans.

    Seriously. You don't find something therein that makes you feel in the faintest bit uneasy?

    Perhaps it's an age thing. And I don't mean that in any kind of patronising way. After all, I have no idea how old you are. But in my experience people who have grown up after, say, the removal of de Klerk and his ilk from power in South Africa, are less conscious of the power this sort of imagery has. Your first thought is not to see anything inherently racist in it. That's admirable. For those that grew up in a world where the issue was more pressing - and there's plenty of evidence to argue that endemic racism is as bad now as it's been in the last 50 years in the developed world - it's immediately evocative of a certain stereotype.

    I don't want to sound arrogant about this. You have your world view, I have mine. If you don't see the problem, that's fine. You're surely able to see that others would, though. Right?
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 11:22

  • m0thr4 #99 3 years ago


    I have a hard time thinking that Capcom, when developing the new game about the undead or virus infected, deliberately chose to root through the history books and pick some fine examples of African behaviour as reported by the white foreigners and use them as set pieces in their game.

    I think it's quite clear that they cherry picked the worst images of Africa from the current media, not the history books. They're not the only ones to do this in a videogame of course, but they've probably done it in the most insensitive way.

    If I was working at Capcom and had some clout, I would be asking why the hell they were trying to cause a shitload of problems for the game and company by placing the game in Africa and making Africans look bad.

    Absolutely. There are a number of ways in which they could have dealt with this. They have been unbelievably stupid. For some people, this will be one of those moments of awakening when you realise that the incredibly well paid and powerful people who run these big companies are just ordinary mortals, and not necessarily very bright.


    Because of that, my opinion is that Capcom have been perhaps naive about the setting of the game or just think that it isn't a problem. I doubt they have tried to be racist on purpose as that would make no business sense whatsoever.

    I completely agree with you, but racism through naivety still has all of the negative effects that deliberate racism has.

    It's like someone who genuinely forgets to pay for something in a shop. Do you just let them go without telling what they just did?

  • Eurytus #100 3 years ago

    "So we don't know what racism is, or it's effects because we're not black and oppressed? What a stupid thing to say. Ive never been shot in the face with a blunderbuss stuffed with tacks, salt, chilli and lemons, but I know for a fact it would hurt like all hell."

    Know what?
    No.
    You don't understand racism in the same way as someone who suffers it.
    Just as a man does not understand sexism in the way that a woman, who may live with it every day in her work does.

    It says a lot that whenever something like sexism or racism comes up in relation to anything, whether its gaming, films or whatever, the first people to jump in stating that its not sexism or racism, its all political correctness gone mad are white males.

    If that doesn't cause you to pause and think so be it.

  • m0thr4 #101 3 years ago

    Perhaps it's an age thing. And I don't mean that in any kind of patronising way. After all, I have no idea how old you are. But in my experience people who have grown up after, say, the removal of de Klerk and his ilk from power in South Africa, are less conscious of the power this sort of imagery has. Your first thought is not to see anything inherently racist in it. That's admirable. For those that grew up in a world where the issue was more pressing - and there's plenty of evidence to argue that endemic racism is as bad now as it's been in the last 50 years in the developed world - it's immediately evocative of a certain stereotype.

    + 1

    I hadn't thought of that, but it certainly would explain why some people here genuinely have no idea what all the fuss is about.

  • stevetuck #102 3 years ago

    i was really looking forward to Resident Evil 5 so i downloaded the trial game to try it out and i am very disappointed with what i have seen... the game feels sluggish.. i remember it being faster on the GameCube.. also its EXACTLY the same game play.. now i played resi4 to death must of completed it 4 or 5 times the shooting animations are the same.. the guns are the same.. you aim the same... the animations when the infected people get hit are the same and they even die the same way

    I also feel it was really hard to aim? the you cant even see the laser sight on the pistol to aim with it (looks like its bluetac again) the atmosphere isn’t good either.. i liked the gloomy resi4 and the fact that it actually looked dark rather than a stroll through some desert..

    Ahh well looks like one game i was looking forward to waited for like 3 years for this but now it can wait till its second hand, looks like crapcom are living up to their name on this one.. cus i bet it still gets 10/10 from all the review websites

    bring on street fighter 4 ... TIGER UPPERCUT!

  • richarddavies #103 3 years ago

    Don't really agree with the racism comments on the hands on. Call me crazy but I was brought up to believe all men are equal, so I don't really see how the argument that it's a problem because the bad guys are black really sticks up. Doesn't change the fact that in all the previous games it's been fine up till now for the baddies to act like d1cks but now it's not ok because there black? I don't believe in special treatment either.

  • septimus #104 3 years ago

    @Eurytus: You are arguing as if the game intentionally tries to be racist. It isn't. It is set in a shit hole part of Africa, and they are really really shitty with some very loose morals. Ever travelled through some? Not the peoples fault directly, more corrupt government.

    Africa has some barbaric areas, literally. As do many other countries. But Africa is set as the birth place of humanity, thus this game works there in context. Yes the Japanese are naive to many issues, but they aren't vindictive.

    People who notice race or gender in environments and react to it are the racist/sexist/yadayada ones.
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 11:48

  • thesombrerokid #105 3 years ago

    to not choose Africa because of the potential race issue is racist and to take offence at black zombies is racist.
    Africa is being portrayed as 'dark continent' on international television right now through 24 and there is no controversy over it, your arguments not only portray you as someone who feels black people should not be portrayed in media but also as someone who thinks games should be censored over other means i haven't played the game but your views are as anachronistic as the ones you feel so superior to.

  • Zomeguy #106 3 years ago

    ¥75 billion(2006) corporations are not naive.

  • Eurytus #107 3 years ago

    "@Eurytus: You are arguing as if the game intentionally tries to be racist. It isn't. It is set in a shit hole part of Africa, and they are really really shitty with some very loose morals. Ever travelled through some? "

    Yes. I've been to the Congo, DRC, Angola, Gabon, Kenya and Tanzania and I never once saw a bunch of black people beating someone in a sack. Nor dragging off white women.

  • Thunderbolt #108 3 years ago

    thesombrerokid,

    'Africa is being portrayed as 'dark continent' on international television right now through 24 and there is no controversy over it, your arguments not only portray you as someone who feels black people should not be portrayed in media but also as someone who thinks games should be censored over other means i haven't played the game but your views are as anachronistic as the ones you feel so superior to.'

    Someone else can most probably word this better but the difference between say the Blood Diamond and RE5 is that in the former you are only viewing the horror whilst in the latter you are an active participant.

    Just my 2 cents on the matter

  • Eurytus #109 3 years ago

    "@Eurytus

    Despite your high and mighty speech, my argument stands and is perfectly valid."

    If you believe your understanding of a type of bigotry is as comprehensive as someone who suffers from it then frankly it staggers me.
    Though I'm not surprised going by the throng of people on this thread proudly stating that they see nothing racist in the imagery when they have never suffered from it.

  • m0thr4 #110 3 years ago

    ¥75 billion(2006) corporations are not naive.

    ROFL! That's only half a billion pounds sterling, and we've seen plenty of far bigger banks and investment companies in the US and UK go to the wall through sheer naivety within the last few months.
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 11:43

  • hibee #111 3 years ago

    The Daily Mail? Opposed to stamping on funny coloured foreigner's heads? Surely you have the wrong newspaper...

  • kangarootoo #112 3 years ago

    "You sir, are a classic example of a racist."

    Ignorance is not the same as racism.


    There are several dictionary definitions of the word racist, but a reasonable concise summary is thus;

    "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races"

    It is perfectly possible for someone to be ignorant of circumstances, past and present, without malice or hate being a part of their point of view. Being able to tell the difference is surely mandatory in discussions like this, right?


    The problem with discussions of this type (the reason I avoid such discussions in places where hardly anyone knows what the f*ck they are on about. i.e. here) is that people often use accusations of racism as a method of debate, to try and undermine those who disagree with them.

    Edit: Furthermore, in this case I would suppose Capcom are perhaps guilty of ignorance, if nothing else.
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 11:47

  • m0thr4 #113 3 years ago

    @richarddavies
    so I don't really see how the argument that it's a problem because the bad guys are black really sticks up

    Good, because that isn't the argument being discussed here at all. You should at least read the article and some of the posts before giving your 2 cents.

  • hello_fi #114 3 years ago

    This comments section has been quite the rollercoaster hasn't it

    People whinging about the control scheme, who also moaned when Resi 4 on the Wii got 7/10

    People whinging about racism, when the game is clearly setting out a story about people with a virus attacking you, and just happens to be in Africa. What is Chris Redfield supposed to do, worry if a a bunch of nobodies will criticize him for fighting back and let them chew his face off or should he fight back? He's not shooting them because they're black, he's shooting them because they're trying to kill him for fuck sake!

    The only times I'm reminded about the race aspect of this game is when people bring it up for no reason. To me its a Resident Evil game about shooting infected people who are trying to attack you. End of.

  • Eurytus #115 3 years ago

    "People whinging about racism, when the game is clearly setting out a story about people with a virus attacking you, and just happens to be in Africa. What is Chris Redfield supposed to do, worry if a a bunch of nobodies will criticize him for fighting back and let them chew his face off or should he fight back? He's not shooting them because they're black, he's shooting them because they're trying to kill him for fuck sake! "

    Read the article. Not everyone who is attacking or displaying problematic behaviour is infected.

  • m0thr4 #116 3 years ago

    "You sir, are a classic example of a racist."

    Ignorance is not the same as racism.


    There are several dictionary definitions of the word racist, but a reasonable concise summary is thus;

    "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races"

    It is perfectly possible for someone to be ignorant of circumstances, past and present, without malice or hate being a part of their point of view. Being able to tell the difference is surely mandatory in discussions like this, right?


    That is not a very good definition of racism at all, so let's be clear on that. Racism is (to quote the OED directly):

    1. The belief that each race or ethnic group possesses specific characteristics, abilities or qualities that distinguish it as inferior or superior to another such group.

    2. Discrimination against or antogonsim towards other races or ethnic gropus, based on such a belief.

    Racism isn't necessarily about hate, it's about misguided beliefs, based on stereotypes. Whether or not you do this knowingly does not affect whether or not you are a racist.



    The problem with discussions of this type (the reason I avoid such discussions in places where hardly anyone knows what the f*ck they are on about. i.e. here) is that people often use accusations of racism as a method of debate, to try and undermine those who disagree with them.


    Yet you clearly have not even bothered to look up the word racism before joining this debate.

  • thesombrerokid #117 3 years ago

    @Thunderbolt!
    true there is a technical difference, but in this instance it's the setting he objects to not what the player does, he's objecting to the developer portraying Africa as a 'dark continent' where he fails to mention (right or wrong) that this image is portrayed all over mainstream media and states his surprise that this happens out side the 1920s.

    I find it hard to believe he has failed consume the other media portraying this image, rather than failed to be offended by it, he's offended by the games setting because he's offended by games more easily than other media, which i find a surprising quality in a supposedly objective games journalist.

    with regrads to gameplay, in my opinion most of his criticisms are about how it differs from the old broken RE games, the only valid critisim i could find was about AI.

  • thesombrerokid #118 3 years ago

    @m0thr4
    see antogonsim

  • m0thr4 #119 3 years ago

    Would you also argue that GTA: San Andreas was a racist game as the protagonist was a violent black man?

    Some people in the press did argue that it reinforces negative social stereotypes. I didn't play it myself, so can't really comment.

    Would you also argue that COD:WAW is racist and insensitive towards that Japanese as it portrays them as maniacal killers

    Personally, I find dregding up past wars and conflicts as a setting for entertainment rather distasteful, so I don't play that sort of game. As to whether it is actually racist, does it encourage negative impressions of the Japanese as a race? You decide.

    Is Africa somehow exempt from being the setting of a popular video game?

    I sincerely hope not. If you actually read the original article above, it's not the fact that the game is set in Africa that causes some people offence. Nor is it the fact that the enemies are predominantly black.

  • benstarkie #120 3 years ago

    so is the golliwog a playable character?

  • m0thr4 #121 3 years ago

    @m0thr4
    see antogonsim

    Right, and see how I said that racism "isn't necessarily about hate".

    Also, you do understand that numbered dictionary definitions are hierarchical, don't you? The primary definition is the belief, and a secondary definition is the actions that result from that belief.

  • m0thr4 #122 3 years ago

    so is the golliwog a playable character?

    WTMKF

  • benstarkie #123 3 years ago

    I should probably comment that (for the benefit of those of you who don't listen to the news) that was an allusion to the racial furore over Ms Thatcher... dont get all mad on me.

    i.e. the retard above. Kill file.... ha!
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 12:13

  • Gecks #124 3 years ago

    "Personally, I find dregding up past wars and conflicts as a setting for entertainment rather distasteful, so I don't play that sort of game"
    *checks* apart from COD3, huh? :)

    and stop chatting and go finish braid. I INSIST! also, IT'S RACIST NOT TO!

  • DanWhitehead #125 3 years ago

    I find it hard to believe he has failed consume the other media portraying this image, rather than failed to be offended by it, he's offended by the games setting because he's offended by games more easily than other media, which i find a surprising quality in a supposedly objective games journalist.

    The image I was referring to is the one that Capcom doesn't want us to reveal. It is not an image that has been seen as acceptable in any other media for many, many decades. If the same scene were to be used in a Hollywood action movie, there would definitely be protests.

  • Bartacus #126 3 years ago

    I always found the movie Zulu terrifying which I 1st watched on a cinema screen when i was 7, I think thats where i get my irrational fear of dark people of African origin from.

    I'm trying to undo that but this game has brought it all back.
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 12:11

  • m0thr4 #127 3 years ago

    "Personally, I find dregding up past wars and conflicts as a setting for entertainment rather distasteful, so I don't play that sort of game"
    *checks* apart from COD3, huh? :)

    Heh, nice try, but check again:

    Call Of Duty 3
    Last played: Wed, 16th Jan 08
    4/26 Achievements unlocked
    70/1000 Gamerpoints won

    Does that look like a game I enjoyed... or one that I played for a few minutes before discarding?

  • m0thr4 #128 3 years ago

    @Dan

    The image I was referring to is the one that Capcom doesn't want us to reveal. It is not an image that has been seen as acceptable in any other media for many, many decades. If the same scene were to be used in a Hollywood action movie, there would definitely be protests.

    Yes, but when you sensationalise it like that, you only make some people want it more. Capcom could not have paid for better publicity than this... unless they did of course...

    ;-)
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 12:16

  • Bartacus #129 3 years ago

    I would think that an African person watching Zulu at the cinema age 7 would be just as afraid of whiteys as I am of darkies, but our weapons seem more civilized than their spears.

  • Darknight #130 3 years ago

    Sounds from this like they've ditched everything that I actually liked about the Resi series, and have replaced it with a misguided multiplayer element that wasn't needed in the first place.

    I honestly hope that devs realise that not all of the games that are made need to be online, and that sometimes a single player game with focus on intense gameplay and storytelling can be just as good, if not better than a game that has had multiplayer awkwardly crowbarred into it.

  • thesombrerokid #131 3 years ago

    the funny thing is the only reason the race debate exsists with this game is because everyone knows japanesse people are racist

  • Gecks #132 3 years ago

    "Does that look like a game I enjoyed... or one that I played for a few minutes before discarding?"

    presumably it would have only taken a cursory glance at the cover before your MUST..NOT..PLAY GAMES SET IN PAST CONFLICTS revulsion kicked in?

    ww2 soooo had the best gameplay of all the wars. i fully endorse it.
    Edited by 2 at 05/02/09 @ 12:31

  • m0thr4 #133 3 years ago

    the funny thing is the only reason the race debate exsists with this game is because everyone knows japanesse people are racist

    Nice way to exemplify definition 1 of racism.

    /rolls eyes

  • benstarkie #134 3 years ago

    its the only way us germans can learn from our forefathers' mistakes. Shoot ourselves over and over.

  • thesombrerokid #135 3 years ago

    @DanWhitehead
    you've intrigued me, tbh i wish you'd made that more clear in the article though i wrote it of as 'capcom asks eg not to reveal plot point, eg twists it into racist debate' and so ignored it, if this is true i'd certainly take back most of what i said

    @m0thr4
    that was the point /rolls eyes

    oh and you've got sand in your vagina about the WW2 thing
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 12:25

  • guernican #136 3 years ago

    "That would also imply that ALL forms of media and literature that use elements of previous conflict as the basis of their theme are distateful"

    Well, there's certainly an argument for that.

    In England, the cretinous majority (or Sun readers, as we call them) still can't get past a simple football match against Germany without dredging up WW2 stereotypes and "Achtung, Spitfire" gags.

    After all, the Nazis are the enemy it's ok to hate, right? Indiana Jones said it, so it must be so. And yet a minuscule percentage of these people were alive when the conflict occurred, most know piss-all about it, and even more have probably never met a German in their lives.

    Then, going by the law of averages, the vast majority of German soldiers in both world wars were decent family men who were just doing what they were told. So, by extension, all the thousands of chaps you iron-sighted and headshot in COD left 2 grieving Wolfgangs and a Juliane behind.

  • m0thr4 #137 3 years ago

    @ Gecks

    presumably it would have only taken a cursory glance at the cover before your MUST..NOT..PLAY GAMES SET IN PAST CONFLICTS revulsion kicked in?

    If you must know, CoD3 was actually the turning point for me - exactly at the point where I stopped playing and traded my copy in back in January 2008 was where I started to wonder whether I should be deriving my entertainment from such realistic depictions of human suffering. What can I say... you get to a certain age (I'm in my late 30's) where you become much more aware of your own mortality and suddenly violence and suffering in games and movies starts affecting you a lot more.

    I've tried a couple of similar games since (CoD4 and GRAW2 for example), but given up on them for similar reasons early on. I still like my dose of cathartic violence in video games, but the setting has to be a certain distance from reality.

  • m0thr4 #138 3 years ago

    That would also imply that ALL forms of media and literature that use elements of previous conflict as the basis of their theme are distateful, as ultimately they are forms of entertainment.

    Well, unless there's a genuine educational angle to it, then yes.

    EDIT: Usually that's the case... if you're talking about stuff like "Band of Brothers", "Saving Private Ryan" etc., then I think they inform as much as they entertain. It's a bit of a grey area. The CoD series is really little more than a shooting gallery though, but I'm not trying to preach here, just expressing my personal opinion.
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 12:36

  • benstarkie #139 3 years ago

    is it me or is there a slight incongruency between the saviour of moral values welcoming me to his kill file? or does that have an educational slant?

  • Gaol #140 3 years ago

    @guernican

    Yes we do have wildly different views. I think you're probably right about people's viewpoints being affected by their direct exposure to the effects of racism, though age is probably only one factor. On the point of whether I can accept that RE5 can be seen as racist, well on the evidence I've seen so far I believe objectively it isn't, and that people who find it so are probably a small minority for whom the 'imagery' has some personal connection with racism that is not of the game itself

    Mr Whitehead seems to be holding something back though so we'll just need to wait and see, perhaps there is a motive beyond what is described in the article which will explain the fact that this came up again in such a big way.

  • coomber #141 3 years ago

    "What Dan's article was pointing out, if you had bothered to read it properly, is that right now, at the time this game is being released, the Spanish are not the targets of constant negative stereotyping by the media as brutal, uncivilised murderers, whereas Africans are... and this game appears to be reinforcing that particular stereotype."

    Negative stereotyping by the media? I know Robert Mugabe looks kinda funny, but he's not some cartoon character made up by the papers. He really DOES butcher people who oppose him you know. One or two of his mates give him a hand as well. They tend to be black Africans.

    As a journalist, I know people who have been to Africa to cover stories of genocides that are being carried out as white, liberal apologists moan about a computer game. Parts of Africa have a reputation for being savage because they are. It's not racist to say that. I'd say it was just as savage if someone got his hands chopped off for voting Labour at a Tunbridge Wells by-election. The only thing is, that doesn't tend to happen (even though it should).

    Oh, and Mugabe looks funny because of his moustache in my opinion...not because of his curly hair, which is probably what the politically correct dickheads thought I meant.

  • Rash' #142 3 years ago

    The level of ignorance perpetuating racist attitudes on this thread is incredibly depressing. I'll tell you a stereotype reinforcing itself here: most gamers aren't cultured.

  • m0thr4 #143 3 years ago

    @coomber

    Lol... I'd love to know who you write for... guesses anyone? It's got to be a right-wing rag of some description.

    Again, like so many other on this thread, you are basing your opinions of Africa on the media... you even fucking said it yourself - you know journalists who have been to Africa? Right, and where do they get sent? Where interesting stories that sell copy are to be found. And what makes interesting stories to the press? Suffering and misery. Is the whole of Africa like that? Of course not. Anyone who has ever travelled though Africa themselves will tell you that.
    Edited by 2 at 05/02/09 @ 12:56

  • MORZTAN #144 3 years ago

    This game will surely be a massapiece!

  • m0thr4 #145 3 years ago

    @Burzum09

    Good grief, I said that I found it distasteful - I was expressing my personal opinion and I made that perfectly clear. I didn't say that no one else should play these games, or that they should be banned.

  • DanWhitehead #146 3 years ago

    On the point of whether I can accept that RE5 can be seen as racist, well on the evidence I've seen so far I believe objectively it isn't, and that people who find it so are probably a small minority for whom the 'imagery' has some personal connection with racism that is not of the game itself

    I don't believe it's a racist game, but it absolutely, categorically makes use of imagery that is racist in origin. The white woman being dragged away by black men and then "tainted" is a classic and recurring motif of colonial racist propaganda. That's a matter of historical record, not personal belief. For such a scene to be used, with no apparent narrative context, in a work of mass market entertainment in 2009 is very surprising.

    Mr Whitehead seems to be holding something back though so we'll just need to wait and see, perhaps there is a motive beyond what is described in the article which will explain the fact that this came up again in such a big way.

    It's very frustrating, because until the game is out there and people can see the particular elements in Chapter 3 that Capcom doesn't want revealed, we can only have half of this debate. Suffice to say that I sought a lot of opinions before writing this article, from friends and colleagues, black and white, some of which were dubious about the game's racial content, some who didn't see a problem with anything in the trailers and demo. Every single one of them was stunned, shocked or at least taken aback when I described this part of the game.

    And I believe that the "danger" (such as it is) of using this sort of imagery in games is that it does nothing to shake off the stigma that videogames are the puerile, dim-witted adolescent cousin of the real entertainment media, lacking in tact, depth and meaningful content.

    If, as I predicted, the mainstream media does pick up on this, or if some organisation like the NAACP makes a statement, or Kanye West gets on stage at an awards show and declares that videogames don't care about black people, then these images are going to be put under intense scrutiny and we - as gamers and as an industry - need to be able to hold back on our kneejerk defences of our hobbies and livelihoods and come up with an explanation as to why the muscular white hero of the latest blockbuster game is literally stamping on the faces of grunting animalistic black Africans.

    Because saying "Oh, it's OK, because these Africans are evil monsters" really doesn't work in the real world.
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 13:04

  • Thunderbolt #147 3 years ago

    Dan,

    I do have a lot admiration for you, as you will write a article and then read the comments made by posters and then post reply. Its what makes Eurogamer that much better than its other its competitors.

    If Fox can make a shit-storm out of the so called sex in Mass Effect I shudder to think whats to come when this is released.
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 13:18

  • Zomeguy #148 3 years ago

    The white woman being dragged away by black men and then "tainted" is a classic and recurring motif of colonial racist propaganda. That's a matter of historical record, not personal belief. For such a scene to be used, with no apparent narrative context, in a work of mass market entertainment in 2009 is very surprising.

    This reminds me a bit of the recent advertising campaign by Tchibo and Esso in Germany where the expression "Jedem den Seinen" was used. It was not deliberate but shows extreme historical ignorance of the responsible people.

  • guernican #149 3 years ago

    @ Gaol

    "On the point of whether I can accept that RE5 can be seen as racist, well on the evidence I've seen so far I believe objectively it isn't, and that people who find it so are probably a small minority for whom the 'imagery' has some personal connection with racism that is not of the game itself "

    And there, I think, is the problem. The answer to "Can this be envisaged / painted / described as racist" cannot be "I, objectively, don't think it is."

    I doesn't matter what you, personally, believe. The debate is surely whether a racist argument would have a putative leg to stand on if, as Dan says, Mr West or Oprah made this their issue de jour. To be honest, I could probably write you the Mail's headline for its centrepiece spread right now.

    Don't make me do it, though. I'll feel dirty all day.

  • kangarootoo #150 3 years ago

    @m0thr4

    Well you've got me on the first point of definition. But the second one refers to discrimination and antagonism, which are active manifestations of hate., which was exactly my point.

    I certainly did look up the definition, and pasted a part of it. Have I ever acted in these pages as someone who states thing without believing them to be fact? Clearly my source material is lacking and I hold my hands up on that count, but please don't accuse me of not trying to research before commenting.


    Regardless, I still think my point about accusations of racist being used out of term still stand. Statements like "the only people who think this game is racist are racists themselves" is only one stop away from the hitler accusation (wiki it). It is nothing but subterfuge and is a barrier to mature debate.

    I think at the root of it all, you and me are in agreement. But these pages are always about people taking sides rarther than actually learning anything.

  • kangarootoo #151 3 years ago

    @DanWhitehead

    Your last post was the best of the thread so far I think. In particular,

    "Because saying "Oh, it's OK, because these Africans are evil monsters" really doesn't work in the real world."

    I agree, as I said before, that I don't think the game is racist but I do believe (from what I have seen thus far) it is ignorant. But by some definitions (something I have learned today) the ignorance in itself is enough to mean the game IS racist. Complex [sic].
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 13:30

  • DanWhitehead #152 3 years ago

    @coomber

    As a journalist, I know people who have been to Africa to cover stories of genocides that are being carried out as white, liberal apologists moan about a computer game. Parts of Africa have a reputation for being savage because they are. It's not racist to say that.

    If someone were to make a game that seriously tried to explore and contextualise the violence in modern day Africa, something along the lines of Darfur is Dying, then I'd be all for it. But let's not pretend that Resident Evil 5 is some serious documentary where cultural verisimilitude is important. It's a game in which you fight a giant bat-scorpion.

  • m0thr4 #153 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    Have I ever acted in these pages as someone who states thing without believing them to be fact?

    Absolutely not, and if I jumped on you a bit hard, I apologise.

  • m0thr4 #154 3 years ago

    @Burzum09
    "To argue that a white person cannot kill a black person in a video game is thoroughly racist."

    It worries me that after reading the article and comments here, you think that is the argument being discussed here.

    It worries me because, one day, if not already, you will be eligible to vote.

  • m0thr4 #155 3 years ago

    Where was the media frenzy surrounding Assassin's Creed (where the protagonist is ultimately a Middle-eastern Muslim executing white Christians)? The hypocrisy is astounding.

    Again, it staggers me that you missed the media frenzy surrounding Assassin's Creed. I can only assume that you have very recently arrived on this planet.

  • Gaol #156 3 years ago

    @guernican

    "And there, I think, is the problem. The answer to "Can this be envisaged / painted / described as racist" cannot be "I, objectively, don't think it is." "

    Not quite what I meant. I was saying that *from an objective point of view* I don't see how it can be argued that what we've seen so far is inherently racist. You admited as much yourself earlier by saying it was quite possible for me to not see the racism because (as you presumed, corectly or incorrectly) I had been brought up without exposure to racist propoganda etc. In other words the racist connotations are actually due to a viewer's particular experience. But lets not go into subjective/objective semantics just yet, lets wait for the final release and see what Capcom are hiding.

    And fairplay to Dan Whitehead for replying to comments here It's a touchy subject, not just the racism, but the idea that the mainstream press and/or PC crowd don't need another excuse to kick videogaming.

  • JohnnyWashnGo #157 3 years ago

    @Burzum09

    Good point, well made. I find myself agreeing with you 100%.

    You have quite eloquently described my precise feelings toward the perceived racism in this game. Hypocrisy is absolutely the right word to use in this situation. It seems that the type of violence in the game would be perfectly acceptable if the protagonist was not a beefy, white American guy and the violence was directed at anything other than Africans.

    I have said it before in this thread and its worth repeating again, any racism in this game is a function of the players own need to point out that white guys hurting black guys is a bad thing and a need to be seen to point out any and all racism, whether it exists or not.

    That being said, I haven't had the privilege of seeing the previously mentioned overtly racist scene in Chapter 3 of the game so I cannot really comment on that but as Dan Whitehead said, 'It's a game in which you fight a giant bat-scorpion.' and taken in that context, I cannot lend any credence to people saying the game is racism from my experience playing the demo.

    However, I am willing to admit that narrow minded individuals in the press or those with an agenda will find the game a valuable weapon in their fight against video games.

  • DanWhitehead #158 3 years ago

    I genuinely see no racism in Resident Evil 5, nor did Resident Evil 4 encourage anti-Spanish sentiment.

    With all due respect, you've not actually played Resident Evil 5. You've seen the trailers and played the demo. There is material in the game, some of it mentioned in detail in the article, that is harder to dispute.

    The fact that you're clinging to the "Resident Evil 4 wasn't racist against the Spanish" suggests that you don't really understand the nature of the criticisms. Spanish people have never been stereotyped as sub-human. Africans have. For many, many decades black people were constantly and consistently portrayed as a lesser species than white people. That sort of cultural baggage doesn't get left behind overnight, and when you take a game in which you fight against a local population turned into savage monsters and transplant it onto African soil then these issues can't help but come to the fore. The only way Resident Evil 4's depiction of the Spanish would be comparable is if the Spanish villagers behaved in ways that were stereotypically assigned to Spaniards.

    And the argument has never been that it's not OK for a white hero to kill a black person in a game. That's a straw man that lets you deflect the conversation into the nebulous world of "political correctness". The criticism is specific to this game, and the way the Resident Evil concept can't help but take on racial aspects when applied to a poor African location. That the game contains specific scenes that blur the lines between normal Africans and the savage monsters, and uses the classic racist scenario of the white woman snatched by black thugs, just makes this reading even harder to ignore.

    "I don't see any racism, so anyone who does see racism must therefore be racist" is circular logic at its worst.

  • Blackthorned #159 3 years ago

    @Razorus

    While we're here, any other huge continents you'd like to generalise with equally epic sweeping statements?

  • Feanor #160 3 years ago

    "an explanation as to why the muscular white hero of the latest blockbuster game is literally stamping on the faces of grunting animalistic black Africans."

    Because the "Africans" (who actually come in variety of races & colours) are infected with a virus which has turned them into killing machine monsters with tentacles spewing out of their mouths.

  • Pac #161 3 years ago

    "The only way Resident Evil 4's depiction of the Spanish would be comparable is if the Spanish villagers behaved in ways that were stereotypically assigned to Spaniards."

    You mean for example, a Spanish guy turned up on a moped and tried to seduce your girlfriend. No wait that's Italians.

    /Perhaps I am racist after all. Gets coat.
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 14:13

  • m0thr4 #162 3 years ago

    "It worries me that after reading the article and comments here, you think that is the argument being discussed here."

    Enlighten me. What IS the argument being discussed?

    I really don't see how I can explain it any more clearly than Dan did in his article, or than anyone else has discussed here already. If you genuinely don't understand after reading all of that, then there really is no hope for you.

  • Mudo #163 3 years ago

    The examples Dan gives sound disgusting and racist.
    Won't be buying.

    Will be writing in to mainstream newspapers.

  • dirigiblebill #164 3 years ago

    I have to agree with Crofto's defence of the control scheme (though not his point that co-op breaks the game) but otherwise what an excellent article. I finished my own preview last night, and shamefully made no mention of the game's casually stereotypical content, even those segments which ram it down your throat. To reiterate, the incident with the white blonde woman is given absolutely no narrative context or justification - it's there purely to create a sensation, to tap into a history of racist imagery with which many players, I suspect, will be sadly over-familiar.

    Where was the media frenzy surrounding Assassin's Creed (where the protagonist is ultimately a Middle-eastern Muslim executing white Christians)? The hypocrisy is astounding.

    Altair's bio might claim he's native to the Middle East (it doesn't say that he's a Muslim, as far as I recall), but the man looks and sounds as white as a Macdonalds milkshake. Nor are the people he executes solely white Christians.
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 14:27

  • m0thr4 #165 3 years ago

    Dan is in a very privileged position, being able to play the game without having to give any money to Capcom. His opinions are therefore very valuable here.

    Post release, there's going to be a bit of a Catch-22 for those who argue that the game has racist overtones: if they have played the game, they'll be accused of lining Capcom's pockets against their better judgement, and if they haven't they'll be told that they're in no position to comment on a game they haven't played.


  • kangarootoo #166 3 years ago

    "This isn't supposed to be Gears of fricking War, it's supposed to be a claustrophobic and scary experience; not being able to shoot and move proves this"

    Utter tosh. Its the same heinous lie that gets wheeled out everytime a ResEvil game turns up with a sub-standard control interface.

    There are plenty of horror games out there which prove that proper controls do nothing to harm a sense of horror or indeed a sense of claustraphobia. Silent Hill 1 and 2 were WAY scarier than any Res Evil game has ever been, and the controls in those games - while basic - were perfectly functional.

  • kangarootoo #167 3 years ago

    @Feanor

    "Because the "Africans" (who actually come in variety of races & colours) are infected with a virus which has turned them into killing machine monsters with tentacles spewing out of their mouths"

    You haven't been reading this thread, have you?

  • DanWhitehead #168 3 years ago

    @Burzum

    I understand your point, but I still feel that being over-sensitive is counter productive.

    But since you've not actually seen the elements in question, how do you know I'm being over-sensitive? Surely a kneejerk defence of "Nope, can't be racist" is no better than the people who, as you say, condemn the game due to pre-conceived ideas?

  • Bulbatron #169 3 years ago

    I was feeling all elated last night because I finally managed to defeat the man with the chainsaw in the Resident Evil 5 demo. But then I read this article.

    Firstly, the controls. I haven't got any problems with the movement/shooting controls. I've been playing Resident Evil games since the PSone original. However, since Capcom seem to be evolving the series, I really feel that at the very least, some more up-to-date (move+shoot) controls should be provided as an option. But if not, I'm fine with them as they are.

    Now, as for co-op, I haven't got any problems with the game including co-op for those who want to use it, but thanks to the need for co-op to have a real-time inventory and the variable A.I. of Sheva, the single player just seems broken.

    Even with the shortcuts and ability to swap items around, the real-time inventory far too fiddly. As for Sheva, she annoyed the piss out of me. If she hadn't been included then I may well have defeated the man with the chainsaw much sooner, but as it was, I kept dying because of Sheva screwing things up for me. It seemed to make very little difference whether I sent her off to attack or told her to stay with me. Swapping items with her mid-battle is a joke. It wouldn't be so bad if she didn't pick stuff up without asking. Reading the article seemed only to confirm that she remains a problem through other parts of the game.

    I am also not sure I like the sound of the vehicular chase sequences, but that's just because I'm not very good at those sorts of things. Judging by the demo and this article, the game seems to contain very little of what made me a fan of the series in the first place.

    If, during single player, Sheva was invincible or simply had more control options, such as 'keep out of danger' or 'wait there' then that would help enormously. If they could also have the game pause when in the inventory or are swapping items with your partner, then this still could be a purchase for me.

    As it is, I think I'm going to have to give this game a miss. It will be the first time I missed a Resident Evil game from the main story. Perhaps the full game will improve things for me - but so far, that isn't looking very likely.

    EDIT: Oh yeah, I nearly forgot the most important thing.

    NO MERCHANT - NO SALE, STRANGER!
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 15:19

  • the_inchworm #170 3 years ago

    Because saying "Oh, it's OK, because these Africans are evil monsters" really doesn't work in the real world.

    Why doesn't it? Examples of African brutality were laid out, and you are saying that it doesn't matter because of perception. It's a sad day when perception overtakes fact. If Kanye West jumps up and says games don't care about black people, I will be perfectly happy to dismiss his opinion as readily as I dismiss anyone who rates perception higher than fact.

    The game designers are free to set their game in Africa. They are free to make their zombies black. It makes for an atmospheric setting. If they want to have a white woman dragged off by blacks - zombies or not - then they should go right ahead. To make an issue out of it is to perpetuate these issues of race. It's part of this particular story, and it creates mood.

    The argument against this seems to be that because of centuries old propaganda, we should display blacks in games in a uniformly positive light. It is just that sort of embarrassing shuffling around the issues that raises awareness of the very thing you are trying to lessen.

    This utter nonsense being spouted about having to have first-hand experience of things to know that they are so is also playground logic. But then 'hot topics' like racism will always bring out poorly argued points of view. It's a fact that several African nations/tribes are bloodthirsty and brutal. If someone wants to set their game to this backdrop that should not raise any eyebrows.

    But of course it does.

  • PierrePressure #171 3 years ago

    I feel bad.
    When I play this and I'm shooting the bad guys, I feel no pang of remorse or regret.
    Am I a racist?

  • kangarootoo #172 3 years ago

    @MattDamon

    "I don't believe racism can be committed in any art form, because I think racism has to be directly inflicted onto one person/group of people from another person/group of people."

    And does an entire race of people not qualify as a group of people?

    I am seriously struggling to see where you got the "racism cannot be commited in an art form" from. A lot of what is said about modern art is that the intent behind the work is as important as the work itself. So if a piece of art has racist intent behind it (which I am not suggesting the game does btw), how does that not make it racist? How does "being art" except it from being classified as racist if it meets all other criteria (whatever they might be)?


    "I don't think the people of Africa will suffer directly, or even indirectly, from anything that is in Resident Evil 5 or any other video game. Therefore, I think the term "racism" is being misused on this thread."

    Well whether or not black people will suffer indirectly is a hugely complex discussion. I could easily suggest that some of the scenes discussed could reinforce nagative stereotypes and beliefs held by a minority of people who view the game, which in turn could affect the way they behave in future situations where race is a factor (or could make race a factor in future situation where it would otherwise not be). If the discussion is to be had at all I think it rather deserves more than "I don't think..." before one side of the debate is dismissed out of hand.

    I might suggest that some of the comments seen so far (about how Africa is the most uncivilised place on earth) demonstrate just how the images being discussed are reinforcing the currently held opinions of some. Could that reinforcement not cause indirect suffering to the "people of Africa"?

  • guernican #173 3 years ago

    "The argument against this seems to be that because of centuries old propaganda, we should display blacks in games in a uniformly positive light. It is just that sort of embarrassing shuffling around the issues that raises awareness of the very thing you are trying to lessen. "

    No. The argument seems to be that if you're creating something which has direct visual parity with, and is immediately reminiscent of, racial stereotyping that still goes on and was generally prevalent far, far less than a century ago, you should expect some controversy around it.

    Oh, to be untroubled by a moral conscience. Or to be 13 again.

  • kangarootoo #174 3 years ago

    @the_inchworm

    I'm not sure exactly the "fact" you describe exists in this discussion. Surely matters of this type are ALL about perception?

    Or is this a case of "fact" being the part that you feel is correct, and ill-conceived perception being the basis of opposing opinions?


    That last question was a bit cheeky I know. I'm just doing my devil's advocate thing :)

  • richarddavies #175 3 years ago

    I think capcom should just tackle this head on in an adult manner and just make everyone in the game hold hands and start singing "heal the world" by Michael Jackson. That should clear everything up.

  • FenderMaster #176 3 years ago

    The preview does seem negative, but the demo was a blast!! I guess this game will just have to be played on co-op to get the most out of it....

    As for the racism argument, I must admit, the site of a muscular, clean cut white man, stomping on the head of a black man, turning it to mush is a little disturbing... but in fairness, some parts of Africa really are that bad, gangs and worse, I on't go into it, because it really is too horrible to discuss, I'll just say "long sleeve or short sleeve"

    +

    it must be remembered that the game is being developed in Japan, by Japanese people, slightly less aware of the raciist conotations their game would suggest, theres not many black fols in Japan, it's their choice of a white lead that is most worrisome, if it were Ada instead of chris it wouldn't be so bad

  • DanWhitehead #177 3 years ago

    When GTA4 was set in New York did anyone complain that New Yorkers were being portrayed wrongly?

    GTA4 didn't portray the entire population of New York as blood-crazed savages hellbent on tearing you to pieces.

  • Feanor #178 3 years ago

    Yeah, I have, kangaroo. I just disagree with you. Smug prick.

  • Feanor #179 3 years ago

    "GTA4 didn't portray the entire population of New York as blood-crazed savages hellbent on tearing you to pieces."

    GTA 4 didn't have a virus in it that turned the people into tentacle-spewing monsters.

  • guernican #180 3 years ago

    "GTA4 didn't portray the entire population of New York as blood-crazed savages hellbent on tearing you to pieces."

    Even if it had, NuYoikers would probably have taken a certain amount of pride in that.

  • Feanor #181 3 years ago

    "All it will take is for one mainstream media outlet to show the heroic Chris Redfield stamping on the face of a black woman, splattering her skull, and the controversy over Manhunt 2 will seem quaint by comparison."

    All it will take is to show the black "woman" with tenatacles coming out of her mouth prior to Chris stamping on her. They could even show the exact same thing happening to one of the many non-black enemies in RE 5 who you don't mention at any point for some strange reason.

  • guernican #182 3 years ago

    I'm actually depressed enough to stop reading this thread.

    Dan, I strongly suspect that if people haven't got what you're saying by now, they're just not going to.

  • DanWhitehead #183 3 years ago

    GTA 4 didn't have a virus in it that turned the people into tentacle-spewing monsters.

    This is the sort of literal approach to the issue that really doesn't hold water outside of the rather insular gaming world. Much of the imagery used in this game has a long and ugly history, and that weight of history can't be counteracted just by saying "But they're not really Africans, they're monsters who used to be Africans". It's a facile distinction that suggests an inability to consider subtext separately from text.

    If someone make a movie in which hundreds of evil demon bankers are trying to steal all the money, gold and jewels in the world, and the bankers are all big-nosed Jews, having the director declare "But they're really demons who used to be Jews" doesn't make the concept any less racist, just as the fact that some Jewish people actually do work in finance doesn't make the fiction any more appropriate.

    And does any character in the game get killed purely on the basis of the colour of their skin?

    Not in the chapters I played. Just because Chris Redfield isn't constantly muttering racist epithets as he guns people down doesn't stop the specific imagery of the white-woman-stealing African savage from being racist.

  • DanWhitehead #184 3 years ago

    They could even show the exact same thing happening to one of the many non-black enemies in RE 5 who you don't mention at any point for some strange reason.

    I mentioned the image of Redfield stamping on a black woman because a) it was one of the images that really made me uncomfortable, whether she's a monster or not and b) because that's precisely the sort of image that the mainstream media would seize upon. The point isn't that this is better or worse than Act Of Violence X perpetrated on Person Y, but that it's the sort of image that can easily lead to trouble for the games industry.

    So, yes, there are a couple of lighter-skinned faces in the throngs. It's hardly the multi-racial rainbow some are painting it as though. Most of these exceptions look North African rather than caucasian. And, once again, the larger issue isn't that the enemies are mostly black people. There are specific scenes that make use of classic racist iconography, and these images would be problematic regardless of the African setting or the percentage of light-faced enemies to dark in the main gameplay.
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 16:18

  • SuperNashwan #185 3 years ago

    Very interesting thread, and as some have mentioned pretty depressing in some respects.

    I don’t see how you can take a position of “this is not a problem” when 200 odd posts have been debating just that. If iconography like that used in the game was not an issue we would not be having this debate. The fact may be that you do not find it in any way morally dubious but it is clear that a good proportion of posters do. Are their opinions invalid because they run counter to your own?

    I think Dan has argued very clearly and cogently for his remarks, as have others. Personally I haven’t played the full game so have no view on it being overtly ‘racist’ but I do think it displays a fairly fundamental level of naivety on the part of Capcom not to stop and consider how this might be received.

  • Feanor #186 3 years ago

    What's facile is you comparing a realistic game like GTA 4 to a zombie/infected shooter like RE 5. You see subtext where you want to see it, just as you see controversy coming for RE 5 because that's what you want to happen.

  • Nithron #187 3 years ago

    The racism debate is completely moot. Here is what will happen:

    A lot of inflammatory news articles will be published. Some generic black celebrity-of-the-week will stand up and decry a game she/he has never seen as being indicative of endemic racism in our society, except, they wont say it quite as eloquently.

    Capcom will probably not even bother responding to any of the criticism.

    The game will not be banned, and the newspapers will forget all about it. A week later, they'll replace the story with some kind of imaginary space-virus that turns people into muslims which later self destruct in a shower of MRSA. Oh, and the vaccines the government developed? They cause down syndrome. Somehow.

  • DanWhitehead #188 3 years ago

    What's facile is you comparing a realistic game like GTA 4 to a zombie/infected shooter like RE 5.

    Actually, that was MattDamon who made the comparison. I was pointing out why it wasn't a good comparison.

    You see subtext where you want to see it, just as you see controversy coming for RE 5 because that's what you want to happen.

    Can you also use your mind-reading powers to tell me what I want for tea? I'm getting hungry.

  • chubster2010 #189 3 years ago

    @ DanWhitehead
    re. GTA4 didn't portray the entire population of New York as blood-crazed savages hellbent on tearing you to pieces.'

    But Resident Evil 5 is a zombie game?! I would be disappointed if, after splashing out £40 for it, the game's locals didn't want to tear me the pieces! That's why people like Resident Evil games!

    You've made some very good points in this thread, but I can't help but think that you're looking for things to offend you. Sure - as I haven't played the full game - there might very well be things there that shock me, but the examples you've raised thus far (eg. the blonde woman being dragged off and beaten) sound perfectly in line with what I'd expect from the series. (Though I eagerly await details on the more shocking scenes you've hinted at).

    Using the above as an example - should we be seeing a blonde, white lady being dragged off by a group of black men, or just a person being dragged off by some other people? Why focus on the race? Obviously, each person playing the game will bring there own knowledge and experiences to the table - and will therefore react differently - but 'white' violence being dished out to 'black' victims (or vice versa) shouldn't automatically drag up all the wrongs of history.

    At the end of the day, Capcom have made the decision to set it in Africa. They have made some concessions (e.g. by including oriental and middle-eastern zombies) but when all is said and done, it's a Resident Evil game. That it is populated with violent and antagonistic locals shouldn't come as a surprise. And, personally, I think it's wrong to read too much into the race aspect.

    Taken to an extreme (and to play devils advocate to some degree!), are you saying that black people should not be able to be featured in video games as 'the bad guy' because of age old prejudices and events? Should Africa be a no-go area for games developers? How offensive would it be to say to someone of african origin - 'We would like to use you're likeness as a zombie in this game, but because of the all the stereotypes associated with Africa, I don't think we can...'?

    In my opinion, the solution to racism is for people to be accepting of each other and work towards inclusion. To make an issue out of RE5 is the work in the opposite direction, and just re-draw the lines. Black people can be zombie's too! They have that right!


    Edited by 3 at 05/02/09 @ 16:58

  • Feanor #190 3 years ago

    "GTA4 didn't portray the entire population of New York as blood-crazed savages hellbent on tearing you to pieces."

    That's you comparing GTA 4 to RE 5, while leaving out the fact that RE 5 is not trying to simulate a realistic city the size of NY.
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 16:40

  • dirigiblebill #191 3 years ago

    Using the above as an example - should we be seeing a blonde, white lady being dragged off by a group of black men, or just a person being dragged off by some other people?

    No, you should be seeing a long-haired blonde, white, highly photogenic lady wearing a lacey black night dress who has no apparent reason to be hanging around a South African shanty town being dragged off, beaten and virally impregnated by a group of black men. There's no question that it's a racially informed (not to mention mildly misogynistic) sequence.
    Edited by 3 at 05/02/09 @ 16:42

  • kangarootoo #192 3 years ago

    @MattDamon

    Man, your post just has strawmen coming out of the ears. Both paragraphs centre on presenting me with a provocative question, apparently representing my point of view. You then go on to lay out how my apparent point of view (as "accurately" described by your questions) is rubbish.

    With that in mind, lets start from the beginning.


    "So you claim an entire race can be depicted in an art form?"

    Well as I understand art, isn't the point that it can depict anything it wants?

    I'm not actually sure you are really asking the right question. I think the right question is "Do you think art should legitimately and morally attempt to depict an entire race?", and you seem pretty set on the idea that my answer would be yes.

    My actual answer would be "It depends on the depiction in question - what its motives are, what its truths are, what it attempts to suggest to the viewer and whether it attempts to lead the viewer".



    "So there's no violence in Africa? Nigerians have been kidnapping oil workers and killing them on a near daily basis. That's fact!!"

    I don't see the connection. This discussion is not, and never was, purely about the setting or the fact that some of the enemy characters are black. It is about the specific ways in which that environment is represented and depicted. Dan has made several references on that basis... do I really need to repeat them?

  • Gaol #193 3 years ago

    "If someone make a movie in which hundreds of evil demon bankers are trying to steal all the money, gold and jewels in the world, and the bankers are all big-nosed Jews, having the director declare "But they're really demons who used to be Jews" doesn't make the concept any less racist, just as the fact that some Jewish people actually do work in finance doesn't make the fiction any more appropriate. "

    Frankly thats a very bad analogy. There would need to be a reason for all the bankers actually being Jewish, which would imply a motive on the part of the director. In RE5 the reason that people are being turned into savages is because an INDISCRIMINATE virus is attacking anyone who encounters it, and the locals happen to be black.. hardly surprising given the setting. It's no different in theory to previous games. And I still disagree that the images/content released so far portray some kind of racist imagery, and it's a huge jump being made by far-left liberals.

    Of course the setting makes it important that Capcom are careful, as one slip up could infect the rest of the game with nasty overtones. But we'll see what it is you're keeping secret. At the moment I can't see any difference between this and Uncharted.

  • Feanor #194 3 years ago

    Even the PS3 vs. 360 faceoff articles are less obvious attempts to generate clicks than the third page of this preview.

  • kangarootoo #195 3 years ago

    @Feanor

    Nice come back. Very well done. If only I had thought of calling you a prick in the first place, maybe my case would have been more effectively made.... or perhaps not.

    The comment you made had already been made, and countered, previously in the thread. Which is why I pointedly suggested you hadn't read the thread. If you are going to repeat sections of it, what else are people supposed to think?

    Dan has subsequently repeated himself for probably the fourth time, explaining the issue more eloquently than I clearly can.

    "This is the sort of literal approach to the issue that really doesn't hold water outside of the rather insular gaming world"

    You just seem, by accident or on purpose - I can't tell, unable to take that on board. This feels like one of those situations where someone has made their mind up, and then just finds ways to support their point of view. You and I don't have to agree, but the debate that could exist is starting to feel like trying to teach a cat to juggle.


    I think this sums things up for me.

    "I'm actually depressed enough to stop reading this thread.
    Dan, I strongly suspect that if people haven't got what you're saying by now, they're just not going to."

    Its the reason I said I wouldn't get into the discussion, and yet here I am. Lesson learned.

  • chubster2010 #196 3 years ago

    @ dirigiblebill
    It's only a racially informed sequence if you're focussing on the races of the characters involved.

    Personally, I see people, not races. I expect you'll call me naive (or indeed a idealist...).

  • kangarootoo #197 3 years ago

    "Sure you are not just sh't stirring for page hits again....."

    More strawman. If you can't undermine the point of view, undermine the speaker. It says a lot about your own point of view as much as anything.

  • chubster2010 #198 3 years ago

    @ Gaol
    Excellent point well made.

  • m0thr4 #199 3 years ago

    If you truly believe that the game is racist propaganda, then don't play it.

    Is that what you think people should do when they suspect racist propaganda... just ignore it and hope it will go away? I predict the BNP will be asking for your phone number.

  • Jenuall #200 3 years ago

    I was hoping for some word of improvement in either the AI on display or the controls, so it looks like this one is still on the "meh" list for me.

    The racism debate is interesting - many people appear to having difficulty seeing things from other people's point of view here - something which I assume stems from a desire to "win" whatever competition you think you are in.

    By all accounts, and I've not played the finished game so this is just going on what has been said, the game portrays a large number of black people performing some pretty horrible acts - by the sound of things this is not only being done by "infected" individuals. The volume, and intensity of these acts is not the point, their historical significance or meaning is not the point - these things will only affect you if you are already inherently biased in your reception of such imagery.

    I didn't spot the caption at the beginning of the demo saying - "this is a true and accurate portrayal of the continent and peoples of Africa", probably because it wasn't there. If they have added one since the demo then I will accept that changes everything.

    I have to say that I think, again I've not seen the extent of what is presented in this game so am prepared to take this back, that Capcom should be as allowed to show a woman of any racial background being dragged away by men of any racial background, if they feel it is relevant and necessary for their production. I don't see how we can hope to live in a world that is "non-racist" until we treat everyone equally - should we censor our world because of the people out there who are already radical in their views?

    The only way to get past the "all the people you meet in the game are hell-bent on killing you" situation would be to create the game so that each individuals play through encountered an exactly equal number of both nice and nasty people - of all ethnic backgrounds, so that the game featured you doing things in every location so as not to contextualise the actions, so that the game had you play for equal lengths of time as a person of every racial background (and sex for that matter)... and it goes on - it is impossible to create something that won't affect someone - whether it be in believing it to be racist or in allowing it to affect their existing prejudices. The only real point of interest is where, or if, we draw the line.

    If people perceive this as being representative of Africa, Africans, Black people, White people.. etc. then that is staggeringly ignorant. But they will - thousands will take this as reinforcement of their own views of those subjects, there is nothing that we, or the makers of this game can do to stop that - the real questions that should be raised from this are -

    Should something that is not intended to be racist (or representative of a culture or place), but which will undoubtedly be received by many individuals in a way that reinforces their racist views, be allowed to be released? And,

    Why are we still living in a society where people are so ready to allow something such as this to influence their views of any race?

  • DanWhitehead #201 3 years ago

    That's you comparing GTA 4 to RE 5, while leaving out the fact that RE 5 is not trying to simulate a realistic city the size of NY.

    No, that's me responding to MattDamon's question as to whether New Yorkers should be offended that GTA 4 was based on their city.

  • m0thr4 #202 3 years ago

    @MattDamon
    Is there a point wrapped up in that babble you just posted? Seriously. if there is, keep it short and sweet next time round and I'll be sure to respond.

    He is referring to the way your postings fail the most basic tests of a solid argument. Because you've never actually bothered to learn how to form a proper argument, his words are going straight over your head.

    Here are some words/expressions to look up in Wikipedia: "Fallacy", "Straw Man", "Ad Hominem". If you can read and understand those articles, you might then understand kangarootoo's posts.

  • dirigiblebill #203 3 years ago

    @ dirigiblebill
    It's only a racially informed sequence if you're focussing on the races of the characters involved.

    Personally, I see people, not races. I expect you'll call me naive (or indeed a idealist...).

    More wilfully blinkered, I think :)

    It's not just that Capcom decided to use a white woman rather than a black woman (which would have made far, far more sense within the narrative) for that sequence, it's that the woman is so prominently, shockingly white. For a moment or two I thought I was watching a scene from some Victorian gothic novel.

  • chubster2010 #204 3 years ago

    @ Jenuall
    You've hit the nail on the head with that post.

  • Feanor #205 3 years ago

    Because kangaroo thinks a point has been countered, it can't be mentioned again in the thread? Dear oh dear.

    Dan and you can claim the literal approach to RE 5 doesn't hold water outside the gaming world and that the racist subtext is obvious till you're blue in the face, but it doesn't make it fact, just an opinion that's straight out of the very insular world of liberal guilt. Why can't you take that on board?
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 17:08

  • kangarootoo #206 3 years ago

    @MattDamon

    I'm honestly not sure what to think now. Should I stick to shorter sentences or something? Tell me how to help you here and I'll do it.

    /reads on

    Oh thank christ for m0thr4's post. I was starting to think I'd had a stroke or something.

    This is what I meant when I talked about teaching a cat to juggle. I'm saying what hand goes where, and the cat just wants to eat or sleep. I never should have got involved in the discussion, as I knew the majority of page residents weren't up to it. This time, lesson actually learned.

  • chubster2010 #207 3 years ago

    @ dir
    re. 'it's that the woman is so prominently, shockingly white'

    And what...pray tell.....is the definition of 'whiteness' that you are basing that comment on? Are blonde people more white than brunettes? I have brown hair - how 'white' am I?




    Edited by 2 at 05/02/09 @ 17:07

  • Feanor #208 3 years ago

    @ dirigiblebill:

    Have you got a link to a clip of this scene?

  • SuperNashwan #209 3 years ago

    "Should something that is not intended to be racist (or representative of a culture or place), but which will undoubtedly be received by many individuals in a way that reinforces their racist views, be allowed to be released? "

    Good question, and very current (ie cartoons of Mohamed) - what is you stance?

    Hard cases make bad law and all that...

  • dirigiblebill #210 3 years ago

    @ dir
    re. 'it's that the woman is so prominently, shockingly white'

    And what...pray tell.....is the definition of 'whiteness' that you are basing that comment on? Are blonde people more white than brunettes? I have brown hair - how 'white' am I?

    I mean the depiction conforms to a very widely promulgated popular stereotype of Anglo-Saxon whiteness - bleached blonde, porcelain-skinned, high cheekbones (possibly even blue-eyed as well, if I remember right). I guess you'll have to watch it to be persuaded of this, but believe me - it's an entirely non-naturalistic, provocative portrayal.

  • Feanor #211 3 years ago

    "I never should have got involved in the discussion, as I knew the majority of page residents weren't up to it. This time, lesson actually learned."

    I think you've shown that you're the one who's not up to it.

  • dirigiblebill #212 3 years ago

    Sadly not, Feanor - we're not allowed to lift screens or footage from the preview build.

  • kangarootoo #213 3 years ago

    @MattDamon

    If you are genuinely interested, dip into these when you have a spare minute of reading time.

    [link url=http://en.wiki pedia.org/wiki/Argument_(logic)
    ]http://en.wiki pedia.org/wiki/Argument_(l...[/link]

    and for a few of those references m0thr4 mentioned.

    [link url=http://skeptoid.com /episodes/4073
    ]http://skeptoid.com /episodes/4073
    [/link]
    http://skeptoid.com /episodes/4074

  • Eurytus #214 3 years ago

    I see the racism apologists, all caucasian no doubt and none of whom ever having suffered racism in their lives, are in fine fettle today.

    This thread, together with a cursory listen to the types of conversations that you hear on Xbox Live, serve as marvellous proof that the world of video gaming has a long way to go before its ball drop.

  • kangarootoo #215 3 years ago

    A closing comment, as I have clearly been misunderstood.

    I'm no liberal apologist. On the subject of ResE5's "race row" I sit somewhere between. I don't think they are being overtly racist, but I do think they are being unwise (read as "a bit dim";) in some of their choices.


    The reason I get vocal is not because I disagree with someone on any given point. It is because I can't help but respond when I see someone dismiss another point of view in a clumsy or illogical way.

    I've argued the case several times on this site for points of view I don't agree with, purely because I have seen a bunch of people band together to dismiss said point of view without even knowing WHY.

    Many of the commentators who believe there is no racist overtines whatsoever in the subject matter have been two steps away from citing "just because" as the foundation of their reason. And that sort of shit just winds me up.

  • guernican #216 3 years ago

    Goodness me. I wish I hadn't come back. And, as someone else said, here I am again.

    "If you think it's racist, don't play it" as yet another comment that misses the point so spectacularly, the poser might as well be sat in an American A-10 tank-buster trying to decide whether they're shooting at the Eye-raqis or their purported allies.

    The point is not that I think it's "racist". The point is not whether Dan thinks it's racist. The point is not whether it is, in fact, coded by a Klansman and marketed by the White Supremacists of America Boys Club and Sailing Society.

    The point, you slow, slow little man / men, is that it will look racist and carry all those unpleasant colonial overtones within it to lots, and lots, and lots of people. There is nothing else to debate. The answer is that you don't feel / see / understand that. Great. You were brought up in a world where you never had that sort of sinister messaging around you. Lucky little man.

    The only thing you need to get through your head is that plenty of people did. Some of them play games. Some of them write for newspapers. Some of them take their opportunities to soapbox to the media. Some of them are genuinely socially-responsible people with genuine points of view that are worth listening to. All else is bluster, bullshit, and your narrow view of the world

  • the_inchworm #217 3 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    The facts I was referring to were the examples mentioned earlier in the thread about Mugabe's regime and life on the ground in Zimbabwe. Brutality, rampant disease and so forth. That situation is indisputable. It's a reality in the world today. To me that reality gives Capcom all the licence they need to set their game in a poor, brutalised African republic.
    I must also add that they could set the game in Africa even if there was no factual parallel because it's fiction, and fiction does not require reality to be successful (but it can help).

    What I go against throughout this thread is the fear of perception, the fear of labelling, and the extraordinary over-reaction to a game's setting. My point is that the scramble to decry racism promotes racism as a corollary. This form of political correctness is self-defeating.

    @m0thr4

    I find your posts particularly grating. You throw out allegations of racism like confetti and seem to think that you have some marvellous insight into the hidden heart of Africa because you have travelled there. For someone to have a negative opinion on the political track record of African states since colonialism does not make them a racist. But your actions do mark you out as a labeller. Who are you trying to impress?

  • Gecks #218 3 years ago

    m0thr4 is actually calling people out for ad hominem? really?

    Jenuall gets it. +1

    i actually don't even see colour. it's not that good, though - can't read the papers for shit.

  • captain-future #219 3 years ago

    blah.

    if a white dude shoots black dudes. RACIST! 1)
    if a black dude shoots black dudes. RACIST! 2)
    if a black dude shoots white dudes. RACIST! 3)
    if a white dude shoots white dudes. RACIST! 4)

    1) because anybody shooting black dudes (in Africa - I mean there are no Innuit there, right?) is RACIST.
    2) see 1)
    3) that's RACIST because it makes black dudes look like bad dudes.
    4) that's EVEN MORE RACIST because there isn't even a black dude!

    GOSH, what isn't racist these days? If you drive a Toyota you're racist... blah.

  • dirigiblebill #220 3 years ago

    My point is that the scramble to decry racism promotes racism as a corollary. This form of political correctness is self-defeating.

    A fair point. But the fact remains that racism exists in every society, and not always - indeed, rarely - in easily identifiable and counterable ways. To write off any accusation of racist content which admits the faintest shadow of a doubt as knee-jerk political correctness would be destructively naive.

  • benstarkie #221 3 years ago

    Marco: Well, Debbie thinks this is all about her biological clock.
    Stormy: She stopped screaming enough to tell you that?
    Marco: No no no no, the other Debbie. Debbie the teacher.
    Stormy: Oh, you mean... black Debbie.
    Sparks: Woah woah woah, why is she... black Debbie?
    Stormy: Not in a bad way, it's just to tell them apart because she's... black.
    Sparks: Well, why don't you call her Debbie, and call the other one... white Debbie.
    Stormy: White Debbie? That's stupid! I know she's white.
    Marco: Then why do you call the other Debbie "black Debbie?" You know she's black!
    Stormy: Hey, first off, I really don't think we should be talking about this in front of Dr. Quinn.
    Quinn: Listen man, you're missing the point. What if everybody went around calling you "white Stormy?"
    Stormy: You mean there's a black Stormy?
    Quinn: ... No.

    Almost zero relevance but I do love me some Sealab 2021
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 18:24

  • GiarcYekrub #222 3 years ago

    @DanWhitehead So is it better than Dead Space?
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 18:33

  • Ryze #223 3 years ago

    Ooooooh, I can't wait.

  • gaselite #224 3 years ago

    "All it will take is for one mainstream media outlet to show the heroic Chris Redfield stamping on the face of a black woman, splattering her skull, and the controversy over Manhunt 2 will seem quaint by comparison. If we're going to accept this sort of imagery in games then questions are going be asked, these questions will have merit, and we're going to need a more convincing answer than "lol it's just a game.""

    a very good point.

    Maybe the point of such imagery is to provoke such debate. Raise questions like 'well when you do those violent things to white people it's ok but once you perform the same virtual acts against a distinct minority it becomes an issue of race'. It's quite a complicated issue with no easy answers, as most racial issues are. Nothing, when it comes to matters like this, is - if you'll excuse the turn of phrase - black and white.

    Whether those questions are worth asking in this context (a video game) is a different matter entirely.

    The fact that the majority of the gamer community tends to be, how to put this gently - intellectually unstimulated and living in an insulated, secure, middle class bubble means that thoughtful, considered debate on this matter is unlikely to occur (which is why I have not bothered to read most of this thread, but I can guess it goes along these lines: 'it's racist' 'no it isn't').

    I will say this: gamers are often too quick to defend videogames against criticisms that are levelled at them, when many criticisms can raise legitimate concerns. The medium is going nowhere, there is no need to be so defensive.
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 18:38

  • Nukemasta #225 3 years ago

    lol....its just a game!

  • the_inchworm #226 3 years ago

    To write off any accusation of racist content which admits the faintest shadow of a doubt as knee-jerk political correctness would be destructively naive.

    I agree with that. The Rodney King beating - fair enough: racist assault. Resi 5's setting and set pieces: move along.

  • FenderMaster #227 3 years ago

    regardless of race, the head stomping is in bad taste, but the boot stamping on a human face is a simbol of opression, and when its a muscular clean cut whiteman, stamping on the face of a skinny, impoverished black woman, with white man's (or more specifically England, Spain, and France's) opression of black Africans, well it's easily to see the symbolism, and whether it was, intentional, or more likely just Capcom's lack of understanding, is irrelevant, intended or not, the symbolism still exists.

    Now I hate double standards, as a white Irish man, I can honestly say, that neither my country, or my ancestors ever opressed black people, and personally I think, racial sensitivity is still far too high, it really should be a non issue these days, if people keep dwelling on it, it will never go away....
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 18:57

  • dirigiblebill #228 3 years ago

    To write off any accusation of racist content which admits the faintest shadow of a doubt as knee-jerk political correctness would be destructively naive.

    I agree with that. The Rodney King beating - fair enough: racist assault. Resi 5's setting and set pieces: move along.

    You wouldn't be naively and destructively writing off an accusation of racist content, would you?

  • evilboo #229 3 years ago

    Are video gamers racist morons? Evidence for the prosecution :RE5. Evidence against ... erm ... Braid or some other game no-one that doesn't play games has ever heard of.

    There is AT LEAST a problem of perception here, whether Capcom intended this analysis or they didn't non-gaming people will see it that way. But the problem is actually much wider and extends to the fact that many, many people (ask my wife) note that the vast majority of games we like playing involve shooting people with big guns or punching them / stabbing them with knives. If we're not all morons, how come so many of our games require the emotional maturity of an 11 year old?

    Whether the problem in this particular case (RE5) is more than just perception we'll have to wait and see, but the bottom line is .. it doesn't look very good to be shooting all these black people in the face.

    Maybe I'm just getting old.
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 19:02

  • m0thr4 #230 3 years ago

    We can argue amongst ourselves as to whether or not RE5 is racist until we're blue in the face, but all this means is that when the videogame-hating media get a hold of this, and they ask gamers for their opinion, do you know what they'll print?

    "Lol, it's just a game"

    "RE4 was about Spanish people and nobody complained"

    "Anyone who says this game is racist is a racist themselves"

    "What, we can't have games set in Africa or something?"

    "What, we're not allowed to have black people as bad guys or something?"

    And this will be the collective voice of video gamers across the globe: fucking stupid non-arguments that don't stand up to any scrutiny by intelligent adults.

    Then some busybody in the Government decides that maybe RE5 is actually breaking the law on "incitement to racial hatred" and moves to get it banned. The opposing arguments from the videogame community? "If you don't like it, don't play it" and "RE5 will be GOTY, get over it".

    Thus the very people who think they are defending our passion against political correctness end up being the ones hammering the final nail into its coffin.... all because they are too fucking stupid/arrogant to engage in a sensible debate.

    We need to have this debate, agree to disagree on some points, and then collectively come up with a sensible response that defends video games in general, rather than one particular game. We will have to accept that might mean openly condemning games like RE5 in order to defend everything else.
    Edited by 4 at 05/02/09 @ 19:24

  • Ryze #231 3 years ago

    No one seems to understand that the issue is with the imagery on show, and its relation recent history and stereotyping, rather than with black and white people.

    In the same way that it would be quite insensitive to have a drink drive Diana simulator, a suicide bomb / gas the Jews simulator, or a kamikaze the US skyscraper simulator.

    There are too many empty headed children in here to even begin to be bothered expecting an understanding. Those, plus the others who just want to hate, but are scared or angry at being branded a 'racist', with the negative stigma attatched these days.

    Have a read of 'Heart of Darkness', by Joseph Conrad, and learn about some of the horrific events that took place on the continent of Africa over the past 5 centuries. Look at teh 'science' that justified peoples' actions, and some of the views and principles that shaped the law in countries like the USA, Australia and South Africa until very recently.

    Open your eyes a little before even commenting. I wouldn't say the game is 'racist' - I haven't played it - to begin with. I'll wait and see how insensitive or ignorant some of the imagery that makes it into the finished game turns out to be.

    /waits...

  • the_inchworm #232 3 years ago

    You wouldn't be naively and destructively writing off an accusation of racist content, would you?

    No I'm intelligently and rationally dismissing an accusation of racist content. If you think that the very accusation itself is proof of the truth of the claim, then you are one of those who values perception over fact.

  • Feanor #233 3 years ago

    "We can argue amongst ourselves as to whether or not RE5 is racist until we're blue in the face, but all this means is that when the videogame-hating media get a hold of this, and they ask gamers for their opinion, do you know what they'll print?"

    No, they won't. They'll ask Capcom to defend their game, which they will have no trouble doing.

    Your fantasy about RE 5 being banned for inciting racial hatred just shows how far gone you are. Good for a chuckle, but not much else.


    "In the same way that it would be quite insensitive to have a drink drive Diana simulator, a suicide bomb / gas the Jews simulator, or a kamikaze the US skyscraper simulator.

    There are too many empty headed children in here to even begin to be bothered expecting an understanding."

    True. Some of them are so juvenile they compare RE 5 to a hypothetical game about the Holocaust.
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 19:33

  • Ryze #234 3 years ago

    ^ cock.

    It could be completely indirect - the enemies could 'just happen' to be Jews because the game is set in Jerusalem for a good reason, and the killer could 'just happen' to be using a biological weapon in keeping with a long running storyline.

    Wouldn't justify it.

    Cock.

  • kwesleyb #235 3 years ago

    Im looking forward to the game, enjoyed RE4

  • dirigiblebill #236 3 years ago

    the_inchworm

    You wouldn't be naively and destructively writing off an accusation of racist content, would you?

    No I'm intelligently and rationally dismissing an accusation of racist content.

    Presumably you're referring to the following?:

    The game designers are free to set their game in Africa. They are free to make their zombies black. It makes for an atmospheric setting. If they want to have a white woman dragged off by blacks - zombies or not - then they should go right ahead. To make an issue out of it is to perpetuate these issues of race. It's part of this particular story, and it creates mood.

    I think you're right to argue that there is nothing racist per se about a violent action game set in Africa, featuring African zombies, and that to cry havoc over this risks precisely the counter-productiveness you describe, but again, the incident with the white blonde woman is a clear instance of racist stereotyping in the name of entertainment. This is no plot device - the developer deliberately and arbitrarily confronts you with the sight of an ostentatiously white woman being assaulted by a black person because it wants to play on the connotations of such an image for dramatic effect.
    Edited by 1 at 06/02/09 @ 15:00

  • Feanor #237 3 years ago

    Got cocks on the brain, Ryze? Not surprising for a cunt, I suppose.

    Your continued failed attempts to equate RE 5 with a gas the jews sim are priceless.
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 20:54

  • Eurytus #238 3 years ago

    As are your craven excuses for racism

  • Bartacus #239 3 years ago

    I think the time has come to choose the form of your enemies ala Ghostbusters, then if your black you could have (insert race here).

    Me I would have a smattering of each race; but whats the point of setting the game in Africa if all the people are white English natives from Putney.

  • VMerken #240 3 years ago

    All right, I think it's a nice moment to talk about the gameplay elements mentioned in the article for a change. Don't worry, I won't say anything about controls, most of you know my stance. I've said enough, and this isn't the place to stir up a controls-related discussion even though Controlz Whining(tm) did flare up here. Okay, maybe just a little :). It is good to see the whining quickly being followed by the wise decision not to buy the game and move on to something else. Don't like what Capcom did? Vote with the wallets. Economic democracy for the win.

    Now, I'd rather talk about this preview text which I liked, but a few things did raise the old eyebrow:

    (1) Repeatedly, the reviewer talks about the bad AI from Sheva and how this is a bad thing. Well, we'll see about that, but my experience with the Outbreaks and RE4 tells me even bad AI can be exploited, and nice things can be done with them. I'm sure the mob here would categorise the AI in, say, Outbreak, as ludicrous, yet I've been able to get max scores using them. I even got them to kill boss enemies without me firing a single shot.

    In RE4, Ashley can be quite useful but I think that's mainly because she's a fast runner, switches between "standing still", "hide" and "running" most of the time and responds very quickly to user input.

    The Outbreak File 2 AI was tougher to work with - Capcom dumbed them down from File 1 (go figure) - but with the right prompting, they were still good enough to do what you wanted them to do.

    I can't fully assess Sheva yet (only from several lengthy tours of the demo), but from the experience garnered, she looks like an AI mix taken from all the above titles. Meaning that you don't have complete control as in RE4 but, if you can push her the right way at the right location, she'll do what you need her to do. It's just that, similar to the control setup, you'll need a little practise until you find the sweet spots in each level and the right course of action to get the AI to do your bidding. And of course, this is bad because I've learned yesterday that instant player control gratification is key these days.

    The choice for a weaker AI might be deliberate, so that you are forced to look out for Sheva and protect her when needed, as was done with Ashley in 4. Of course, remembering Silent Hill 4, this mustn't be overdone, because the masses didn't like the companion you had to take care of in the second part of that game. Compared to that survivor, though, Sheva is much more nimble, and she can shoot. So, are most video game players gallant and will they enjoy keeping Sheva alive or will they hate her because she's " a pain in the behind to take care of"? We'll soon find out.

    Don't forget: Chris likes every chance he gets to "play nice guy" (see Resident Evil 1), so you mindfully protecting Sheva as Chris kind of fits to his profile.

    (2) On page 2, the reviewer writes: "I ran around wasting ammo for several minutes wondering where she was, before realising she was still jogging along behind me."

    Well, then that's the reviewer's own fault. There is a control function called "Locate Partner" (in Setting A, you press L2 I believe) - use it, and the camera will find Sheva in a few frames worth of time. Hold the button to walk (or run) towards her location. You even get a minimap popup so that there is absolutely no reason for you to complain that you just wasted minutes to find out Sheva was trodding behind you all that time.

    I learned that while studying the control setup screen and trying it out in the demo, but I guess that's hard work and no instant player control gratification.

    (3) The reviewer writes on page 3, "One of the first things you see in the game, seconds after taking control of Chris Redfield, is a gang of African men brutally beating something in a sack. Animal or human, it's never revealed, but these are not infected Majini. There are no red bloodshot eyes. These are ordinary Africans, who stop and stare at you menacingly as you approach."

    While I of course cannot be certain at this point for RE5, I would like to note that the first Ganados you encounter in Resident Evil 4 look entirely human - no red eyes, nothing. They also were very easily defeated by Leon, indicating perhaps that they were infected by a still developing parasite. Also, as the parasite inside Leon developed, he became violent in Chapter 5-4, almost choking Ada to death. And, at the end of chapter 3-1, Ashley suddenly becomes very irritated towards Leon for no apparent reason.

    This led me to speculate that Ganados in their early stages of mutation still look human, but turn to violence very easily. Perhaps it is the same for the group of Africans described in the passage above, that they are being controlled by developing parasites similar to those of that created the Ganados? That they, as such, still look human but already the parasite is boosting their aggression to extreme levels?

    (4) The reviewer concludes his discussion with, "All it will take is for one mainstream media outlet to show the heroic Chris Redfield stamping on the face of a black woman, splattering her skull, and the controversy over Manhunt 2 will seem quaint by comparison. If we're going to accept this sort of imagery in games then questions are going be asked, these questions will have merit, and we're going to need a more convincing answer than "lol it's just a game.""

    Allow me a humble proposition for such an answer: one, the events and characters in this production are entirely fictional. Two, a lot of the enemies depicted in this game are very unfortunate human beings being controlled by parasites which eventually take their humanity away and replace them with voracious, irresistable hunting instincts. My reaction is to feel sorry for them because they are victims in all of this. Because I know that someone else, a puppet player operating in the shadows, is responsible for the loss of their humanity. It is that one which needs justice served.

    You know, this also leads me to the thought that I don't quite understand why a (ficitional) official, well-organised, government supported group such as the BSAA isn't supported by doctors willing to research cures for these people. After all, inside the game universe, there exist an antidote against the T-Virus (Daylight from Outbreak), the G-Virus (Red Devil, I believe) and light-sensitive treatment from RE4 (which cured Leon and Ashley from their respective parasite infections). So, why not have Chris and Sheva escort some specialised medics (led by, say, oh, Rebecca) into the battlefield and cover them while they develop cures and save people still in the early stages of the parasite infection? That would have made more sense to me.

    I wonder about this because RE5 is not like the earlier Resident Evils, where the protagonists are hit by something completely unexpected and have no choice but to kill to survive. Here, the government (and probably the rest of the world) ARE aware about the situation - so why is there purely combat in this game (at least in the parts we've seen until now)?

    (5) On page 2, I get to read, "There have been almost constant gunfights, but nothing you could really call a puzzle and no adventure elements at all. That changes slightly in Chapter 3 as you venture into the marshlands in pursuit of Irving and must locate four quarters of a plaque to open a doorway. In the Resident Evil games of old these pieces would be hidden away, unearthed by moving statues or matching patterns. Here, they're just marked on your map and you zip off to find them in a rather nifty airboat."

    I'm getting mixed feelings about this kind of commentary and am seeing it mirrored in many places... so let me get this straight. On the one hand, there is Controlz Whining(tm), where it is asserted that the controls feel archaic and outdated and blablabla. On the other hand, there is this yearning for the puzzles of old, a desire to push statues, play crate pushing puzzles (in 720p with bumpmapping and advanced geometry), use Hex Cranks, Square Cranks and Valve Handles and backtrack through multiple, empty areas, but this time *with* awesome next-gen controls?

    Okay then.

    (6) All right, I think this text is way too long already, but I still would like to add that I am not against everything in this preview. Here are some elements I whole-heartedly agree with:

    "You know who the unsung hero of the Resident Evil series is? The guy who moans "Resident Eeeeeevil" at the start of each game"

    Yes sir. You should hear him say "Biohazard", too. Or "Outbreak" - "File Two". Good times.

    "The first major action scene of the game, much is familiar from Resident Evil 4."

    This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it did irk me, because I expected new, creative solutions to handle the enemies and not mostly the same stuff from RE4, but HD reskinned. The "fire grenade barrels" are interesting, though - maybe there's more of that ahead? And I certainly didn't expect:

    "Chapter 1 continues in this vein, through various streets, houses and buildings, until you reach an underground facility, the location of your first boss encounter. It's a gloopy, wormy mass that takes on a vaguely humanoid shape. It's already polished off another BSAA squad, but luckily for you it decides to attack in a room with a giant incinerator oven at one end. Luring the beast into the oven is the obvious solution, but the timing is tricky since the doors take a while to close, giving the monster a chance to slither back out again if you strike too late."

    They reused the Leech Queen? And...

    "Beat the monster and you're thrown into a chase sequence where you use mounted machineguns to mow down Majini attacking from motorbikes and trucks, and this leads straight into another boss fight against an El Gigante from Resident Evil 4.

    What?

    Resident Evil 4 featured all new monsters, traps and mechanics. Here, they reuse two bosses from earlier games in the first three chapters already? And the less interesting ones at that (why not plug in a Nemesis, or Verdugo)? That's not right, unless... well, I can think of a reason, but if that's true then I hope the first three chapters are only 5% of the entire game. I'm not buying the reason otherwise.

    Finally, there's this: "That Sheva neatly fits the approved Hollywood model of the light-skinned black heroine, and talks more like Lara Croft than her thickly-accented foes, merely compounds the problem rather than easing it."

    Yes. Sheva's accent (considering that she's supposed to be a local) puts me off a little. They gave Mikhail, Carlos and Nicholai thick Brazilian/Russian accents in RE3, yet Sheva speaks perfect Queen's English while the other locals have African accents (ref. the speaker in Public Assembly from the demo)? Unwillingly, I associate this with Sheva being adopted, then raised in Cambridge or Oxford University. That would be typical Capcom fare, though - she is probably also in her early twenties and already a part of the highest elite unit in whatever army she has served (with top honours and rank of course), fluent in 6 languages, a well-respected chemist/biologist and can effortlessly control jet planes, power boats and helicopters. And she will probably, unlike Chris yet again, play piano like a pro.

    Good night.
    Edited by 3 at 05/02/09 @ 21:45

  • Ryze #241 3 years ago

    @ Feanor

    Carry on being YOU. Enjoy every day of the rest of your life, being you, and being the way that you are.

    Must be great having so many people avoiding twatting you because it's not very nice and it's against the law.

    You cock.


  • Feanor #242 3 years ago

    "As are your craven excuses for racism"

    Not finding RE 4 or RE 5 racist does not imply a lack of courage. Of course you are the guy who naively assumes everyone in this thread who doesn't find RE 5 racist is a caucasian and a racism apologist, so it's not surprsing you'd come up with another load of bollocks.

  • Daymare #243 3 years ago

    you are the guy who naively assumes everyone in this thread who doesn't find RE 5 racist is a caucasian and a racism apologist, so it's not surprsing you'd come up with another load of bollocks.

    And that comes from pretty much the worst kind of "lol it's just a game" advocate in this thread, who naively dissmisses any notions that some aspects of RE5 just might be racist, poorly defends the aspects that are not even the most problematic in this discussion, immediately insults a poster who rightly calls him up on that sad fact, consistently missunderstands other posters' arguments/analogies and who, to top it all off, wrote that Even the PS3 vs. 360 faceoff articles are less obvious attempts to generate clicks than the third page of this preview. I better put you on ignore before my irony receptors overload. :)

  • Ninja_Tino #244 3 years ago

    RESIDENT EVIL FIIIIIIIIIVE!

  • mister_moo #245 3 years ago

    I don't mind the sometimes cumbersome control system. If Resi had a GoW style control, then all tension and suspense would be gone, and instead people would be running in circles around the desperately slow zombies.
    I concede, however, that all tension and suspense may already be ruined by the constant gunfights rather than exploring. Walking around can create atmosphere, not just killing.
    They should introduce the rockworms from GoW2, that'd be pretty scary.

    OH MY GOD ITS A GIANT WORM

  • Eurytus #246 3 years ago

    "Not finding RE 4 or RE 5 racist does not imply a lack of courage. Of course you are the guy who naively assumes everyone in this thread who doesn't find RE 5 racist is a caucasian and a racism apologist, so it's not surprsing you'd come up with another load of bollocks. "

    And are you caucasian?

  • Bulbatron #247 3 years ago

    VMerken.

    I'd like to respond to some of the points you raised, if I may. They may not be in the same order you listed them in yourself I'm afraid, so my apologies in advance if that makes this a bit scrappy to read.

    You said "I'm getting mixed feelings about this kind of commentary and am seeing it mirrored in many places... so let me get this straight. On the one hand, there is Controlz Whining(tm), where it is asserted that the controls feel archaic and outdated and blablabla. On the other hand, there is this yearning for the puzzles of old, a desire to push statues, play crate pushing puzzles (in 720p with bumpmapping and advanced geometry), use Hex Cranks, Square Cranks and Valve Handles and backtrack through multiple, empty areas, but this time *with* awesome next-gen controls?

    Okay then. "

    I think the point being made there, was that if the game was less action-heavy and there were more puzzles, then the old controls wouldn't be an issue. I think what is bugging the people who you dub control whiners, is that the gameplay is moving into a more action-heavy style, but the controls are not moving forwards with the gameplay. You see? I should point out at this point that I myself had no problems with the controls for movement and shooting, but that's only because I'm used to Resi controls.

    As for the A.I. - I know there are various measures in place to help you control her a little and even locate her, but I haven't found the commands to be of much help. I do agree though, that using the location button is very easy. Not that it helps if you use it, only to find Sheva doing something totally random - even after you thought you had given her a command. Ashley may have been a bit of a burden, but at least (as you pointed out yourself) she instantly did as she was told, and (from my experience) didn't randomly change her mind.

    Also, are we going to get the 'it was done deliberately' argument whenever anybody makes a point about a possible flaw in the game? This argument might hold water when it comes to the controls, but the idea that the A.I. might have been made weaker deliberately seems a little silly to me. Why would they intentionally cripple something that is so vital to your survival?

    Having limited ammo adds to the tension. Having slightly unusual controls adds to the tension (though I do feel that argument is beginning to lose credibility), but intentionally unpredictable A.I? I don't think so. I could actually live with the A.I. just fine if her larger screw-ups didn't mean instant Game Over for the player. What other flaws/oddities/outdated ideas (delete as you see fit) are we to be expected to swallow on the basis that they were an intentional component of the gameplay?

    I realise that you only said the choice for weaker A.I. MIGHT be deliberate and not that it WAS deliberate, but I just think there's only so many times that argument will hold water. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that you shouldn't have to 'exploit' bad A.I. It should simply be good A.I. to begin with.

    I also think it is wrong to generalise players who are having trouble with the controls as simply being seekers of instant gratification. All they are asking for is a control method that feels natural to them, and while the traditional Resident Evil controls for movement and shooting work fine, I don't see why Capcom shouldn't provide an OPTIONAL control-method for people who want to move and shoot at the same time. Having a method of control that works for you surely does not come to the same thing as simply wanting instant gratification.

    Now about the scene with the black men dragging away the blonde woman. The writer of the article may well be mistaken about the infected (or otherwise) state of the men or the level to which they have been infected, but what I think he was trying to point out was the imagery, and what it may bring to mind for some people.

    I know pretty much nothing about Africa, and at the moment I really can't decide where I stand in terms of whether or not this game is racist - intentionally or otherwise. I've read some good and not-so-good arguments from both sides.

    I do agree with you on some things though. Judging by the demo and what we have read and seen so far, this does seem very much a retread of Resident Evil 4 - even more so than the old-style Resident Evil games may have been re-treads of one-another.

    But about Sheva. I'll say once again, that I know nothing about Africa, so for all I know, there may well be good reasons why Sheva is not black like the villagers are and neither does she have an obvious accent. I suppose it could be because she comes from a part of Africa where that is what colour and accent the people have. I don't know - but I am wondering whether this is actually more possible fuel for the racism debate. Some people may be wondering why Chris Redfield's partner couldn't have been black - possibly even from an area much nearerto the village from the game.

    Anyway, I don't know. I just don't know what to think about that.

    Also - I agree with you that the unsung hero of the series is the RESIDENT - EEEEEEVL! guy! :-)

  • VMerken #248 3 years ago

    Bulbatron.

    Fast answers, I really need to sleep very soon.

    I think the point being made there, was that if the game was less action-heavy and there were more puzzles, then the old controls wouldn't be an issue. I think what is bugging the people who you dub control whiners, is that the gameplay is moving into a more action-heavy style, but the controls are not moving forwards with the gameplay. You see? I should point out at this point that I myself had no problems with the controls for movement and shooting, but that's only because I'm used to Resi controls.

    I hoped I didn't have to get into this again, but here we go again. The way I see it, it's that the Control Whinerz are not willing to move forwards themselves. In Resident Evil 4, every control problem had a solution, but you have to be willing to find it. It is no problem for Capcom to make better control schemes - they proved that with Devil May Cry. If they are not changing the scheme here, it means that with practise, you can find solutions to everything, every challenge the game throws at you. If you needed run+gun, jumping and/or crouching, they would have implemented it.

    Simple comme bonjour.

    As for the A.I. - I know there are various measures in place to help you control her a little and even locate her, but I haven't found the commands to be of much help. I do agree though, that using the location button is very easy. Not that it helps if you use it, only to find Sheva doing something totally random - even after you thought you had given her a command. Ashley may have been a bit of a burden, but at least (as you pointed out yourself) she instantly did as she was told, and (from my experience) didn't randomly change her mind.

    I think we are too early to judge the A.I. We need to see her in the finished game, we need to spend time with the AI to get to know the ins and outs. But even if the AI turns out to be broken, experience proved that it can still be used. And used well. That's why I don't like people dissing her based on a few chapters and a single playthrough.

    Also, are we going to get the 'it was done deliberately' argument whenever anybody makes a point about a possible flaw in the game? This argument might hold water when it comes to the controls, but the idea that the A.I. might have been made weaker deliberately seems a little silly to me. Why would they intentionally cripple something that is so vital to your survival?

    I told a possible reason.

    Having limited ammo adds to the tension. Having slightly unusual controls adds to the tension (though I do feel that argument is beginning to lose credibility), but intentionally unpredictable A.I? I don't think so. I could actually live with the A.I. just fine if her larger screw-ups didn't mean instant Game Over for the player. What other flaws/oddities/outdated ideas (delete as you see fit) are we to be expected to swallow on the basis that they were an intentional component of the gameplay?

    I don't know - it's too early to judge Sheva yet - but how about this: with thinkwork, you can avoid her doing larger screw-ups? You can stall her in the background and clear out the "trip zones" so that she passes in one go, uninterrupted? There might not be puzzles in this game in the traditional RE sense, but thinking out such things is a kind of puzzle, too, isn't it? I know I had lots of fun doing that kind of thing in RE4.

    I realise that you only said the choice for weaker A.I. MIGHT be deliberate and not that it WAS deliberate, but I just think there's only so many times that argument will hold water. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that you shouldn't have to 'exploit' bad A.I. It should simply be good A.I. to begin with.

    It's all subjective and relative. In the end, learn to work with the tools you are given.

    I also think it is wrong to generalise players who are having trouble with the controls as simply being seekers of instant gratification.

    Like I said, instant player control gratification is something I learned about yesterday from a certain game designer. I don't agree with it at all, so I was being cynical about it here.

    All they are asking for is a control method that feels natural to them, and while the traditional Resident Evil controls for movement and shooting work fine, I don't see why Capcom shouldn't provide an OPTIONAL control-method for people who want to move and shoot at the same time. Having a method of control that works for you surely does not come to the same thing as simply wanting instant gratification.

    Of course, but the designers of the game don't want to give you that natural feel (which is subjective and often dependent on the latest control fad). They want you to face the challenges with what they give you. With the rules they set. Because it's their game, their rules. Having an optional "natural scheme" changes the rules of their game. It's like people whining about not being able to pull crates in a crate pushing game (after all, that's a "natural" move, too).

    Now about the scene with the black men dragging away the blonde woman. The writer of the article may well be mistaken about the infected (or otherwise) state of the men or the level to which they have been infected, but what I think he was trying to point out was the imagery, and what it may bring to mind for some people.

    Yes, and I tried to come up with a plausible explanation of that scene. The scene may bring some bad things to mind, but if it is properly explained, if it is cinematically conveyed such that this "explanation" is visible, people may understand it. If I shoot someone in the head in a movie without explanation, yeah, people might not like me. But if it is explained (straight after the act or over the course of the movie) why I'm doing it, they might understand. And perhaps even applaud me for it because I saved the world. Or loathe me because I'm really the bad guy :).

    People loathed Picasso's first exhibition because his images were extremely disturbing. But over time and through understanding, people accepted them and eventually appreciated them. Heck, people appreciate art made of faeces and semen these days. The imagery in RE5 might follow suit. Of course, if it turns out that it's poorly contextualised by the developers... there might be trouble ahead.

    But about Sheva. I'll say once again, that I know nothing about Africa, so for all I know, there may well be good reasons why Sheva is not black like the villagers are and neither does she have an obvious accent. I suppose it could be because she comes from a part of Africa where that is what colour and accent the people have. I don't know - but I am wondering whether this is actually more possible fuel for the racism debate. Some people may be wondering why Chris Redfield's partner couldn't have been black - possibly even from an area much nearerto the village from the game.

    Yep, in this case the spontaneous associations in my mind painted the picture I wrote down in the previous post. Here, it was me who thought too fast without waiting for contextualisation by the game. Your idea might be correct, or perhaps a short exchange between Chris and Sheva in the opening cut scene will make everything clear about her background and her perfect King's tongue.

    Anyway, I don't know. I just don't know what to think about that.

    Neither do I. It's all conjecture up to this point. We'd have to see the entire game, the entire context before we would know what to think. That's why I feel all these cries about racism and not-racism is just too early...

    Good night. For reals now.
    Edited by 1 at 05/02/09 @ 23:58

  • Feanor #249 3 years ago

    Whatever gets you thru the night, Daymare. Having a comments thread troll/nobody like you ignoring my posts certainly won't cause me any lack of sleep. Sorry that the bad analogies and poor arguments about gassing Jews and demon Jewish bankers weren't enough to make me join the RE 5-is-racist movement you've hitched your wagon to.

    I don't naively dismiss notions that RE 5 is racist, I just find them unpersuasive at this point. Of course we're all still waiting to see this terrible thing Dan mentioned but isn't allowed to talk about yet. I've got no idea why you find me suggesting that generating clicks might have something to do with the content of this supoosed preview. Are you really that naive about how videogame websites work?

  • Ryze #250 3 years ago

    /yawn

    bedtime

  • zehoo #251 3 years ago

    Gee, who would have thought that Africans would live in Africa...............

    Maybe Eurogamer's hits are low this month and they needed something to stoke the fires.

    Edited by 1 at 06/02/09 @ 03:57

  • dizzydee_11 #252 3 years ago

    The only way Resident Evil 4's depiction of the Spanish would be comparable is if the Spanish villagers behaved in ways that were stereotypically assigned to Spaniards.

    So the villagers shouting "¡Te voy a hacer picadillo!" in Resident Evil 4 wasn't a stereotype for you? That would be like the African villagers shouting I'm going to make chicken and watermelon out of you! Way to be a hypocrite.
    Edited by 1 at 06/02/09 @ 04:38

  • GideonQuinn #253 3 years ago

    Is Resident Evil 5 going to cause suffering to African people? No. Does it use artistic liscence? Yes. I'm having a hard time following this debate purely because i don't understand how someone can consider a work of extreme, utterly over the top fiction a gateway to further racism, leading to the people of Africa enduring further misrepresentation and hardship in both the media and the eyes of everyday people because the mere afterthought is there that Resident Evil 5 IS an accurate depiction of daily life in one of the biggest continents in the world.

    Seriously? Man...

    You need to have a little faith in both people and human decency before assuming that people are too idiotic to tell that the difference between fact and fiction. Maybe elements of Resident Evil 5 can be interpreted in 'non- flattering' ways, but so can many other things. Such is the way of speculation and rumour, not to mention the oversensetive nature of the majority of people these days. It's really easy to see the "racist undertones" in this game if you look hard enough for it. The problem is - We shouldn't look for something that isn't truly supposed to be there, and It shouldn't be an issue to anyone.

    Great films like Blood Diamond and Tsotsi shed light on the plights of life under gang reign Johannesberg and in the mining pits of Sierra Leone, there's plenty of accurate and thoughtful representations in the media, but Resident Evil 5 is a game about shooting things. It is a work of fiction about Bioterrorism and the horrors it can bring. It's not Orwell stuff by a long shot but it's a nice little escapist concept designed to be light entertainment. It's not going to change anyone's opinion on African people, nor is it going to reinforce or harbour further hate from already bigoted people - and you can take my word on that. I just think we should put all of this negative energy that we are chanelling to hate on a video game towards more positive and productive things... For example, if you feel strongly about the troubles in Zimbabwe, maybe consider Aid work over there? I'm just saying, there are much bigger things at stake in the world right now. Zimbabwe is under the rule of one of the most brutal dictators to be seen in years and there's a terrible famine. There's also wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Republic of Congo, Israel and Palestine which show little to no signs of ending any time soon. THAT is the sad reality, and all you have to do is watch the news a few times a week to realise that RE5 has absolutely no bearing on that.

    Ok, i'm done. Sorry :)

  • GideonQuinn #254 3 years ago

    Oh, and from what i've heard - The zombification of the blonde girl is done to introduce the stronger form of infected parasite that stems out of the neck to attack you. So, there's your story relevance :)

  • Daymare #255 3 years ago

    bad analogies and poor arguments weren't enough to make me join the RE 5-is-racist movement you've hitched your wagon to.

    Incorrect assumption on your part, again. I haven't "joined any movement" (where have I stated my stance in this matter?), I was just pointing out the irony of you accusing somebody else of writing a "load of bollocks" (not to mention *you* calling somebody else a "smug prick", ha-ha!) since your only contribution in this thread was an "argument" that Because the "Africans" (who actually come in variety of races & colours) are infected with a virus which has turned them into killing machine monsters with tentacles spewing out of their mouths., a bunch of aggressive replies, insults and not much else. :)

    As for your insinuations that this racism topic was brough up by Dan just to generate clicks; you might want to check those links about logical fallacies kangarootoo posted. Not just one but a couple of them fit the bill here.

  • m0thr4 #256 3 years ago

    @Feanor
    Dan and you can claim the literal approach to RE 5 doesn't hold water outside the gaming world and that the racist subtext is obvious till you're blue in the face, but it doesn't make it fact, just an opinion that's straight out of the very insular world of liberal guilt. Why can't you take that on board?

    I love this loaded expression, 'liberal guilt" that you keep using. I'm not exactly sure what it means, but the only other people I have ever heard using it are the BNP.

  • R.A.D. #257 3 years ago

    I was just reading this site the other day and was thinking what a professional seeming, well written site it was.....

    And then I run across this.

    Nothing like deliberately manufacturing controversy to get people to come to the site, eh boys and girls?

    Another fine example of sleazy, tabloid style journalism in order to generate hits.

    You owe your readers a public apology for this garbage. This is the kind of crap that belongs in the Sun, not on a gaming website.
    Edited by 1 at 06/02/09 @ 09:49

  • Jasugun #258 3 years ago

    @GideonQuinn (don't mind my English, which is not my native language)
    I think that the point made by DanWitehead is that RE won't be racist to any sensed player but will look racist for anyone else looking only at the surface of things because he'swilling to make big news with quick conclusions (i.e. some media).
    Thus, RE may become the talking subject about racism in games because it uses, on the surface, some imagery without proper narrative context, while, utlmately not being racist. And then, just becasuse of looks and the way widespread information work, videogames in general might once again end end up being silly and racist, and whatever is bad in the newspapers.
    EDIT: ...and, as you said, detract people's attention from real issues in Africa, to superficial looks in videogames.
    Edited by 2 at 06/02/09 @ 08:38

  • fiery_jackass #259 3 years ago

    >the zombification of the blonde girl is done to introduce the stronger form of infected parasite that stems out of the neck to attack you

    ha ha, it'd be great if white infectees automatically grew into the ruling class of beastie, much stronger than their benighted, dusky cousins. Doubtless the frantic apologists here would claim this is counter-racism and just shows that the white man is de debil.

    I've been enchanted (with the occasional blip) by RE since the first shots of the original appeared in OPSM, I've raised eyebrows at control system complaints the whole time. As soon as I started playing this one, I knew it felt wrong. Clumsy and immersion-breaking.

    And Dan's article is the best I've read on here for a loooooong time.

  • DanWhitehead #260 3 years ago

    I think that the point made by DanWitehead is that RE won't be racist to any sensed player but will look racist for anyone else looking only at the surface of things because he'swilling to make big news with quick conclusions (i.e. some media).

    Not really. There's definitely potential here for the wider media to put the boot into games again, but there is imagery in the game that - I believe - is absolutely drawn from racist stereotypes that have long since been excised from other media. It doesn't need to be taken out of context to make it look bad, since the context of the game is what makes it so eyebrow-raising. To see such imagery in a game ultimately impacts on the strides that gaming has made to be considered the creative equal of, say, film and television.

    That doesn't mean to say that the game will make people racist or that it will have an immediate or detrimental effect on Africa today. It doesn't even mean that you can't play the game and enjoy it. But to continually insist that the fiction of the game somehow excuses the use of these images, or say that it's racist to point out racism, is to be wilfully ignorant of the historical meaning these images still carry. If, for example, Nicolas Cage made an action movie in which he went to Africa and encountered the same things I saw in the first three chapters of Resident Evil 5, there would be uproar. Of that I'm absolutely positive.

    I don't think the game should be banned, or censored, or boycotted, but I do think that this debate needs to happen, and it needs to be seen to be happening. If games are to be taken seriously as an entertainment media then we can't blithely use powerfully loaded imagery like this and then hide behind weak rationalisations like "They're monsters, not Africans" or "Oh, it's just a game" when questions are asked. That is the point I've been trying to make.

    And with that, I'm spent.

  • Cider86 #261 3 years ago

    All non-racist people are racist against racists.

  • Eurytus #262 3 years ago

    I think it can be safely said that quite a few people on this thread would enjoy a Storm Saxon video game.

  • frostcircus #263 3 years ago

    This is why I read Eurogamer. It's the one gaming site that steadfastly refuses to pander to its audience. Thankyou Dan, this is a great article in several ways, even if it is falling on a lot of deaf ears.

    And those deaf ears have inspired me to finally finish making the ham-fisted allegorical comic I wrote half a year ago. I abandoned it when Capcom acknowledged there was an issue here, but since they've gone ahead and doomed the gaming industry to its worst PR of all time, fuck them. They squandered the benefit of the doubt.

  • Ryze #264 3 years ago

    +1

  • TetsuZaemon #265 3 years ago

    Okay, well, my point of view has already been represented many times here, and in many cases, far more articulately than my reproduction of it, so... I'll stay vague.

    I'm worried about society. Not because the views of other people shock me, but because one day, the full force of narrow-minded, politically-correct sensationalism may crush an idea I respect, or a game I enjoy.

    Though, I think the comments on iffy AI and clunky controls have negated those worries, this time 'round.

  • SuperNashwan #266 3 years ago

    @ Dan + 100

    "Nothing like deliberately manufacturing controversy to get people to come to the site, eh boys and girls?

    Another fine example of sleazy, tabloid style journalism in order to generate hits. "

    Do you read the Daily mail ?

  • frostcircus #267 3 years ago

    Oh, and psst... "let's not talk about this, let's just ignore it" is an attitude far more PC than anything in Dan's article. Just saying.

    PC is a strange term - it's only ever used by people who don't know what it means. I can't think of a single other example in the English language where this happens.

    edit: My mind's really racing about what the secret Chapter 3 content might be... the worst plausible option I've come up with is a version of the classic 'hero disguises self as zombie' trope. Because oh dear. I hope it's not that.
    Edited by 3 at 06/02/09 @ 11:15

  • JohnnyWashnGo #268 3 years ago

    I just wonder when the world, and the people in it, will be able to move on and not find a white guy taking out black zombies in africa offensive.

    If we label this game as racist and say that we abhor the depiction of black/white violence in the game, but find that if the roles were reversed and it was Fiddy blowing away white guys, that that is acceptable, then we are guilty of displaying a stupid level of double standards.

  • m0thr4 #269 3 years ago

    I just wonder when the world, and the people in it, will be able to move on and not find a white guy taking out black zombies in africa offensive.

    If we label this game as racist and say that we abhor the depiction of black/white violence in the game, but find that if the roles were reversed and it was Fiddy blowing away white guys, that that is acceptable, then we are guilty of displaying a stupid level of double standards.

    Congratulations on spectacularly missing the point of both the article and the discussion in these comments.

    You win a banana.

    (Although I advise you get someone to peel it for you, those things can be dangerous).

  • m0thr4 #270 3 years ago

    edit: My mind's really racing about what the secret Chapter 3 content might be... the worst plausible option I've come up with is a version of the classic 'hero disguises self as zombie' trope. Because oh dear. I hope it's not that.

    Given what we've already learned about this game, it could just as easily be the zombies performing a "Black & White Minstrel Show" song and dance routine.

  • Blackthorned #271 3 years ago

    Erm, um well did anyone else cancel their preorder after playing the demo?

  • JohnnyWashnGo #272 3 years ago

    'Congratulations on spectacularly missing the point of both the article and the discussion in these comments. '

    Haha, the congratulations are for you. For being the most patronising poster in thie whole thread. If you enjoy talking down to people, kindly do it elsewhere, preferably somewhere I don't frequent.

  • Eurytus #273 3 years ago

    He's right. You completely missed the point of the article AND the thread.
    Not to mention the fact that you decided to argue a strawman from the get-go.

  • Darkbeat #274 3 years ago

    About the boss thing you need to tell Sheva to attack by holding B and selecting Attack from the menu.

    Regarding the whole thing with the imagery of the black savage man I think it's not that far off... Don't get me wrong. I don't think they are animals that attack white people on sight but it would seem obvious that the uninfected still are Majini affiliates... And remember that people are pretty poor in Africa. Just remember the whole gas explosion thing that happened in Kenya a few weeks ago because an entire village rushed an overturned tanker truck to get free gasoline.

  • SomaticSense #275 3 years ago

    So. Virtually unplayable in single player then. Nice.

    Was going to get the game after playing the demo as I had no problem with the controls, and was hoping (in vain) that the serious AI problems (not problems with the AI glitch-wise, but design-wise) were as bad as they were going to get. Not happy to hear that is really isn't as bad as it gets, not by a long way.

    Not getting it at all now. I play games to have fun, not to scream at the telly because of such a stupid forced gameplay mechanic and ridiculous design decisions.

    Why Capcom? Why have you ruined the series like this?

  • busboy33 #276 3 years ago

    @Razorus:

    "Africa is well known for many things, including raping and pillaging."

    Actually, it is a pretty well documented fact that the continent of Africa has never raped or pillaged anybody.

    Let me fix your sentence. You meant to say, in pointing out how silly it is to be concerned about the potential racism in the game:

    "Africans are well known for many things, including raping and pillaging."

    Boy, that sure sounds pretty icky. I can see who you phrased it as you did. After all, you're not racist, right? You're just explaining in a purely objective way how Africans rape, how they are "pretty well known" for it. Right, right -- not black people. Just the West Africans. Once the negros leave that uncivilized hellhole and move somewhere that has higher standards, they seem like perfectly normal people.

    Feel free to jump down my throat . . . but just as a suggestion before you fire off your righteous indignation: think really, really hard about what you wrote.

  • busboy33 #277 3 years ago

    @ MattDamon:

    "I don't believe racism can be committed in any art form"

    I'll assume you haven't seen the 1915 movie "Birth of a Nation", then. One of the most groundbreaking movies of all time, probably more influential on the entire history of cinema than any other movie. Stuningly, blindly racist.

    Here's a link to it over the Interwebs:
    [link url=http://www.archive.org/details/dw_griffith_birth_of_ a_nation
    ]http://ww w.archive.org/details/dw_griffi...[/link]

    I can certainly agree that a "racist" portrayal doesn't directly impact the subject of the racism -- it doesn't deny that race the ability to view the portrayal, for example. But if a piece of art forments, encourages, instills, etc., racist beliefs and stereotypes, isn't that spreading of racism "committing racism"? As you've seen in the threads, there's plenty of people that form their opinions based on nothing more than what they see on TV or in the movies.
    If my work of art causes people to develop racist beliefs, and then they act on those beliefs, I didn't do anything . . . but it is also possible to lay some or all of the blame squarely at my feet.
    I suppose this depends on the definition of "commit racism". Has a painting ever lynched anybody? No. Could a painting make someone think lynching someone is the right thing to do? I'd call that committing racism, even if its unintentional.

  • busboy33 #278 3 years ago

    @Dan Whitehead:

    "If someone make a movie in which hundreds of evil demon bankers are trying to steal all the money, gold and jewels in the world, and the bankers are all big-nosed Jews, having the director declare "But they're really demons who used to be Jews" doesn't make the concept any less racist, just as the fact that some Jewish people actually do work in finance doesn't make the fiction any more appropriate."

    *applause*

  • busboy33 #279 3 years ago

    @VMerken:

    "In Resident Evil 4, every control problem had a solution, but you have to be willing to find it. It is no problem for Capcom to make better control schemes - they proved that with Devil May Cry. If they are not changing the scheme here, it means that with practise, you can find solutions to everything, every challenge the game throws at you."

    This sounds like you're saying part of the game is figuring out how to control the software, that you have to discover the hidden working mechanics in order to untilize the game -- the "puzzles" have moved from "find the key to open the door" to "figure out how the hell to control your avatar in order to progress". If that is the correct interpretation of your comment, then that's poor game design, IMHO.

  • Bulbatron #280 3 years ago

    VMerken.

    I've got some more answers for you.

    "I hoped I didn't have to get into this again, but here we go again. The way I see it, it's that the Control Whinerz are not willing to move forwards themselves. In Resident Evil 4, every control problem had a solution, but you have to be willing to find it. It is no problem for Capcom to make better control schemes - they proved that with Devil May Cry. If they are not changing the scheme here, it means that with practise, you can find solutions to everything, every challenge the game throws at you. If you needed run+gun, jumping and/or crouching, they would have implemented it."

    I don't think players are asking to be able to jump and crouch/take cover and all that other stuff, just to be able to move and shoot simultaneously. But on the whole, what you are saying does sound reasonable, but in this case I think it is a matter of perspective. I think you really can argue this one both ways, and I think both points of view have merit. I think busboy33 makes an interesting observation here.

    You can say that Capcom are refusing to move forwards with their controls, and I'm not convinced that the control method is in some way, a vital part of the Resident Evil experience. I certainly don't remember ever feeling that I had in some way, to 'master' the controls in order to play the games properly. They just worked, even in Resident Evil 4 -and for shooting and movement, even in the demo for Resident Evil 5.

    But yes, as you rightly say, you could also argue that players are refusing to move out of their comfort zones and try something different for this game. And as you say, it is Capcom's game, so it is their rules. If players don't like it, then they can vote with their wallets and not buy the game. If the game does badly as a result of the controls (not likely, I know), then will Capcom change them for future titles, or decide that they would rather not compromise their vision and not release any more Resident Evil games? Which of those two scenarios is more likely? Would their be any other possibilities? And in the unlikely even that the game does genuinely suffer sales as a result of the controls, then does that still mean that Capcom are right and all those players are wrong?

    I know I sound like a control whiner, but I really don't have a problem with the move/shoot mechanics. I'm just trying to see the other point of view. I hope I am not coming across as being deliberately argumentative.

    "I think we are too early to judge the A.I. We need to see her in the finished game, we need to spend time with the AI to get to know the ins and outs. But even if the AI turns out to be broken, experience proved that it can still be used. And used well. That's why I don't like people dissing her based on a few chapters and a single playthrough."

    Good point again. The demo is somewhat out of context, so it might well be that Sheva is, overall, not nearly as bad as she seems (for some poeple like myself, at least).

    I still can't buy the idea that we should somehow have to learn how to use the A.I. This is not a child that is accompanying us on our journey, but a fellow member of the B.S.A.A. She should know what to do in any given situation, just as we do. She should know that if she becomes seriously endangered, she should run to a safe distance - just like we would. I'm not saying we should never have to help Sheva, and admittedly, she always seems willing enough to give us a quick boost with the healing spray if we look as though we need it, but I just think she should help herself a lot more than she seems to.

    If the A.I. does turn out to be broken though, then I would rather that it was possible for her to die, and our punnishment for not protecting her was to have to continue the story without her assistance, rather than an abrupt Game Over screen.

    Ashley's occasional bit of stupidity is perhaps forgivable, since she has probably led a fairly luxurious kind of life-style and isn't used to having to make quick, fluid decisions.

    "I told a possible reason."

    Unless I've misunderstood you here, I think my answer to this is also covered in my above response.

    "I don't know - it's too early to judge Sheva yet - but how about this: with thinkwork, you can avoid her doing larger screw-ups? You can stall her in the background and clear out the "trip zones" so that she passes in one go, uninterrupted? There might not be puzzles in this game in the traditional RE sense, but thinking out such things is a kind of puzzle, too, isn't it? I know I had lots of fun doing that kind of thing in RE4."

    In Resident Evil 4, Ashley actually did as she was told, and indeed, I did occasionally find I was able to exploit this - often by using her as a sort of distraction/herding tool - if that makes any sense. It certainly helped make up for her inability to shoot or heal me. I didn't see much obedience from Sheva though. She sort of did what I wanted after a fashion, but it felt a hell of a lot more random to me. And sometimes she seemed to just change her mind about what she wanted to do.

    I suppose you could look at having to manage the A.I. character as being a sort of puzzle, but if so, it feels like an unintentional one. And when a puzzle looks a lot like an excuse for bad A.I. (I'm not saying this is the case, just how it looks - to me.), then I don't think that is a good thing. If it was intended to be a sort of puzzle-like layer to the game, then I think it is rediculously artificial. As I said, this is not a child we are supposed to be protecting, but an equally able-bodied colleague.

    "It's all subjective and relative. In the end, learn to work with the tools you are given."

    Well that's certainly true, and perhaps what you are saying here is a leeson that players like myself could do with learning. All I will say here though, is that in the case of the Resident Evil games, I've never felt this to be necessary. I suppose, however that it is never too late to introduce such a philosophy into the series. But again, this must not become an excuse for developers to create crappy tools.

    "Like I said, instant player control gratification is something I learned about yesterday from a certain game designer. I don't agree with it at all, so I was being cynical about it here."

    You sounded as though you probably aren't willing to be any more specific about what exactly it was you learned, so it's hard to know quite what you are not agreeing with. But I suppose fundimentally, what you are saying is, that if a player is willing to try out new things, then ultimately, they can gain a lot more satisfaction, than simply sitting down with a game an essentially playing it on auto-pilot.

    "Of course, but the designers of the game don't want to give you that natural feel (which is subjective and often dependent on the latest control fad). They want you to face the challenges with what they give you. With the rules they set. Because it's their game, their rules. Having an optional "natural scheme" changes the rules of their game. It's like people whining about not being able to pull crates in a crate pushing game (after all, that's a "natural" move, too)."

    All of what you are saying here is probably true, so I think it comes down to simply whether intentionally making strange controls is a good idea or not, and I think we've covered this to some degree in our answers above. If you like the controls or are willing to adapt to them, then great, but if not, then go play something else.

    "Yes, and I tried to come up with a plausible explanation of that scene. The scene may bring some bad things to mind, but if it is properly explained, if it is cinematically conveyed such that this "explanation" is visible, people may understand it. If I shoot someone in the head in a movie without explanation, yeah, people might not like me. But if it is explained (straight after the act or over the course of the movie) why I'm doing it, they might understand. And perhaps even applaud me for it because I saved the world. Or loathe me because I'm really the bad guy :).

    People loathed Picasso's first exhibition because his images were extremely disturbing. But over time and through understanding, people accepted them and eventually appreciated them. Heck, people appreciate art made of faeces and semen these days. The imagery in RE5 might follow suit. Of course, if it turns out that it's poorly contextualised by the developers... there might be trouble ahead."

    You are right, but from what I am understanding here (and I may well be off the mark), the scene in question seems to be evocative of historically bad imagery. For people who recognise this imagery, the context or explanation of it may well be irrelavent - irrational as that may seem to other people.

    "Yep, in this case the spontaneous associations in my mind painted the picture I wrote down in the previous post. Here, it was me who thought too fast without waiting for contextualisation by the game. Your idea might be correct, or perhaps a short exchange between Chris and Sheva in the opening cut scene will make everything clear about her background and her perfect King's tongue."

    Exactly. The overall lesson to be learned here is perhaps to wait for the full game to contextualise these things - and I suppose that also goes for many of the other points we have raised.

    "Neither do I. It's all conjecture up to this point. We'd have to see the entire game, the entire context before we would know what to think. That's why I feel all these cries about racism and not-racism is just too early..."

    Yes, I think you are probably right.

    I hope my other responses made some sense to you, even if you still don't agree with them.
    Edited by 3 at 06/02/09 @ 19:28

  • DanWhitehead #281 3 years ago

    Well, actually, since the Jews aren't a race, kinda difficult for it to be racist isn't?

    You should read more. The Jews are an ethnoreligious group - ethnic in origin but with a cultural identity that also closely incorporates their religion. It's entirely possible, therefore, to be born Jewish but not practise Judaism. A non-practicing Jew doesn't stop being Jewish.

  • DanWhitehead #282 3 years ago

    You can choose to follow the religion of Judaism. You can't choose to have Jewish ancestry. Race and religion are inextricably linked in the Jewish identity, and have been the subject of much debate, so for you to say that it's just a religion - "simple as" - is incorrect.

  • Eurytus #283 3 years ago

    "I don't need a definition you condescending twat. You have no idea how many books I've read you arrogant little man."

    Oh but you clearly do since you immediately go on to get things completely and utterly wrong.

    And as for this;

    "Do you believe the images you've seen are inaccurate portrayals of any segment of African life? "

    I do look forward to you posting all your evidence of the fact that black men dragging off white women is a common segment of African life.

  • kangarootoo #284 3 years ago

    Thought I would dip back in for a moment. Good to see nothing has changed.

    Actually, I wrote something a bit more pointed but I've deleted it and started again.


    MattDamon, I didn't realise I was being such a dick when I gave you those links before. I thought you were genuinely interested in learning something about a constructed argument, along with some of the common method of misdirection that people use to avoid rational discussion. I was kind of surprised to see I had caused offence with those links, or maybe anything that makes you feel like you don't know everything has to be faced down with insults (and I don't even mean that to be cheeky, that is just genuinely how it appears).

    If someone gives you a clear definition of something (Dan's definition of "jewish";) that you feel is incorrect, I guess you can either challenge the definition with a factual reference of your own, or you can dismiss it with no factual basis whatsoever (in this case, "simple as";).

    Its exactly the same as responding with "of course it is" or "that sounds ridiculous". If that works for you then fine, but you then have to accept that other people (such as me, but I'm far from alone) simply won't take you seriously EVEN IF you have something reaonable or insightful to say.



    This is a fork in the road here. You can either learn something from all of this, or just continue to hurl insults at things you don't understand. And you know, at the end of all of this you don't even have to like me. Its really got nothing to do with me. You can go off, rationalise your thought process and learn how to present a case for or against a point of view, and benefit from that many times over in the future. Because when you really need to convince someone of your point of view, you will have the tools with which to do it.

    Or you can just continue to call people names when they present you complex ideas that you don't understand or agree with, just 'cos I told you not to, and cut off your nose to spite your face...

    Of course, the third possibility is that I am simply completely and utterly wrong, but I have my own opinions about that which you can probably guess at.

  • R.A.D. #285 3 years ago

    Well Eurogamer, you've got a nice long list of people coming to your site to comment, just like I predicted.

    Nothing like cashing in on race baiting to drum up some traffic for your site huh?

    Bunch of pathetic, sleazy wankers.

    I'll take that public apology now.

  • Eurytus #286 3 years ago

    Does the irony of the fact that you whinging is further boosting traffic blow your mind?

  • EmiliasHorse #287 3 years ago

    Interesting preview, lots of debate over the controls, racism, lack of actually being scary, total ditching of adventure in favour of all out shooter with crap AI and linear pathing. The demo felt 7 or 8 depending on my frame of mind at the time; I suspect the finished title could prove to be a next gen disaster.

    Alone in the Dark has been a bit of a let down, however hopes were low for that one anyway. Silent Hill is shovel ware toss in the next gen and now Resi is set to litter the bargain bins in no time. Thank goodness for Dead Space and Siren Blood Curse.

    Fingers are still crossed that it all comes together, but on the evidence of Dead Rising, Lost Planet and Devil May Cry (All look superb, initially play superb but leave me wishing for something that I cannot quite put my finger on).

  • coomber #288 3 years ago

    "Again, like so many other on this thread, you are basing your opinions of Africa on the media... you even fucking said it yourself - you know journalists who have been to Africa? Right, and where do they get sent? Where interesting stories that sell copy are to be found. And what makes interesting stories to the press? Suffering and misery. Is the whole of Africa like that? Of course not. Anyone who has ever travelled though Africa themselves will tell you that. "

    Come on m0thr4, you could have done better than that. I'm basing my impressions of Africa on the media? What...Resident Evil 5? I'm not sure what point you are making in your little rant. Journalists get sent to areas where something newsworthy happens. Yes. Well done for spotting that. But what has that got to do with Resident Evil 5?

    And where did I say "all of Africa was like that"? Pretty sure I didn't. But ask any white farmer in Zimbabwe if black people have never attacked whites. You might learn something.

    Oh, and as for basing an opinion on what "the media" say...you do realise you are basing your opinions on how racist RE5 is because of what the media have told you, right?

    Get a fucking clue, son.
    Edited by 1 at 06/02/09 @ 20:14

  • VMerken #289 3 years ago

    Busboy33.

    "This sounds like you're saying part of the game is figuring out how to control the software, that you have to discover the hidden working mechanics in order to untilize the game

    That's exactly what I'm saying. Learning the game inside out, getting to know it, break the enemy AI, breathe it, use it, win. It is a very rewarding process which not only lets you master a game (often decided by frame perfect timing), but a lot of others as well. You begin to see the patterns, and react to them more quickly, more efficiently. And every now and then, you find an interesting glitch. In RE4, I discovered the Verdugo door glitch. Then there's Ditman, and so on.

    -- the "puzzles" have moved from "find the key to open the door" to "figure out how the hell to control your avatar in order to progress". If that is the correct interpretation of your comment, then that's poor game design, IMHO."

    If with "figure out how the hell to control your avatar in order to progress" you mean "sit back and gloss over the control setup so that you know what pressing a button actually does, so that you know what all the possibilities are", then yes. Learn them, practise them, but don't go whining that your favourite move isn't in there if the opportunity to find alternatives is available. Go deep, and you shall probably find.

    However, the puzzles I refer to are not about the avatar directly (most of the time). The puzzles I'm talking about is this (I'll take RE4 as an example): Water Hall, you enter it with Ashley and are assaulted by heavily armed Ganado Monks coming from three sides. After that, there's a crank scene. The puzzle is: depending on my objectives, how do I get Leon and Ashley safe through that scene?

    If my objective is not to get hit, I might need to solve the scene in an entirely different manner than if my objective is to be as quick as possible, or to only use the Combat Knife, etc etc. Figuring out the best strategy is an interesting puzzle I'm glad to solve. Often, the best solution isn't straightforward - nice, a challenge. RE4 gives you the opportunity to try all those things and take it to the highest possible level, which in my opinion is great. And while playing with all these objectives in mind, you can feel that a lot of these venues have been covered to some extent by the designers. They knew what they were doing - certainly not poor design in my book, what with all the replayability they offered.

    Call that poor game design? Go ahead then - it's a subjective matter anyway - and move straight on to games you think have "great game design". Won't stop me from playing "poor design" games and having a blast.


    Bulbatron.

    I don't think players are asking to be able to jump and crouch/take cover and all that other stuff, just to be able to move and shoot simultaneously.

    If the Capcom developers deem that it is required in one of their games, they'll include it. Even in Resident Evil.

    And I do think players would want jumping and crouching, because that's what they get in any FPS, plus presumably human characters (their arguments) should be able to jump and crouch and look around corners and so on. Unless of course, the players have double standards and only want the easy moves, you know, the ones they can always fall back to in case of an emergency.

    This can be discussed until the end of the world, but as long as the developers don't include, it just might be more productive to use the tools you get. And perhaps get some enjoyment/rewarding feeling out of it.

    Incidentally, jumping can be a very powerful, evasive tool. Just play Dead Rising and you'll know what I know.

    You can say that Capcom are refusing to move forwards with their controls

    Because they just might like to keep the game rules the same -

    and I'm not convinced that the control method is in some way, a vital part of the Resident Evil experience.

    It is. Read on.

    I certainly don't remember ever feeling that I had in some way, to 'master' the controls in order to play the games properly. They just worked, even in Resident Evil 4 -and for shooting and movement, even in the demo for Resident Evil 5.

    Well, for me, too. After a few initial plays, they come naturally as far as I'm concerned. But I'm looking at the entire picture here. Controls have two faces. On the one hand, you have the control interface (X makes you jump, Square makes you run, etc). There, you expect that the controller responds exactly as you have read in the manual (barring typos). If you read X = Jump, then in the game, pressing X would mean exactly Jump.

    Because this is the technical face of the controls, I think it is possible to establish some sort of "control standard", for example: if the controls do exactly what they say in the manual, and are not completely random (whouch would mean that your cat would have the same chances of completing the game as you) or have enormous delays (if it takes 10 seconds for your moves to register, i.e. you press jump and kick and then have to wait 20 seconds for the jump and the kick, this might not be desirable).

    I think it is safe to say that RE5's control interface does what the control setup says it does, and it is very responsive. No problems there.

    The other face of the controls is what they actually do in the game, the freedom they offer you in the game environment. Their functionality. As such, the controls become part of the game rules. They're like commandments: in a crate pushing game, the controls are implemented in such a way that you have the commandment, "Thou shalt not pull the crates"

    Here, I think people should have the courtesy of letting the developers have the last word. They make the game, they get to decide the rules. In RE5, Capcom decided, while defining their control setup, "Thou shalt not run+gun", "Thou shalt not Jump (unless the game offers it). And we should take that game and play it by those rules. Because that's how the developers intended it. Because they set up the rules which lead to the challenges the developers want to give you.

    Don't agree with the rules imposed by the controls? Then play another game, one you'll like!

    If the game does badly as a result of the controls (not likely, I know), then will Capcom change them for future titles, or decide that they would rather not compromise their vision and not release any more Resident Evil games? Which of those two scenarios is more likely? Would their be any other possibilities? And in the unlikely even that the game does genuinely suffer sales as a result of the controls, then does that still mean that Capcom are right and all those players are wrong?

    I don't think it has anything to do with right or wrong. Was the inventor of chess wrong by letting the king only walk for one tile per move? Was the inventor of soccer wrong by limiting ball control to the feet of the field players? Was the guy who coded crate pushing puzzles wrong for not implementing crate pulling?

    You tell me. I like to think that "it is what it is".

    As for the economic factors you mention, that too may be part of the development process and eventually lead the developers to implement "other" controls. I'm not an expert, but such things will probably involve "focus groups", "targeted marketing" and "statistical analysis". However, that doesn't suddenly make the developers - or you - right or wrong all of a sudden. And no matter what happens, I'll just stick to what I always do anyway: read the manual, practise and break the game :). Their game, their rules.

    I know I sound like a control whiner, but I really don't have a problem with the move/shoot mechanics. I'm just trying to see the other point of view. I hope I am not coming across as being deliberately argumentative.

    It's always fun to look at things from different angles. However, I see no point in this other point of view. Either play with what you get, or play something else that has what you want. And if you can't find anything at all, then instead of wasting everyone's time with pointless whining, make your own killer game and show the boys at Capcom and the rest of the world how it's *really* done.

    Good point again. The demo is somewhat out of context, so it might well be that Sheva is, overall, not nearly as bad as she seems (for some poeple like myself, at least).

    It' s not just the demo we've played that I was refering to. I also specifically targeted the reviewer of this article. He had a limited time playing through an early 3-chapter build, he had only a basic knowledge of the controls (not knowing about Locate Partner is a hint), yet his observations of Sheva's AI while playing this briefly led him to the conclusion that the AI isn't good. I don't buy that - if you don't quite know what you're doing, don't be surprised if things snowball into something bad.

    Why am I not buying it? Because of my own experience. First time I played Outbreak, for example, my thoughts were along the lines of, "How on Earth am I ever going to finish a chapter with these morons alive"? But then, as you go through the chapter again, you begin to notice things. And discover more things. Suddenly, they aren't so bad at all. And a few plays later, you get them to do virtually all the work for you.

    Sheva just might be like that. But, we don't know until we've learned the intricacies of her A.I. throughout the entire game.

    I still can't buy the idea that we should somehow have to learn how to use the A.I.

    AI isn't just Sheva, it's also present in your enemies - as such, it's *vital* to learn how to use the AI to your advantage.

    This is not a child that is accompanying us on our journey, but a fellow member of the B.S.A.A. She should know what to do in any given situation, just as we do. She should know that if she becomes seriously endangered, she should run to a safe distance - just like we would. I'm not saying we should never have to help Sheva, and admittedly, she always seems willing enough to give us a quick boost with the healing spray if we look as though we need it, but I just think she should help herself a lot more than she seems to.

    I understand that you're trying to evaluate Sheva's AI in light of what she is and you are right, she should have a more mature behaviour than, say, Ashley. However, in order to do this evaluation, we need more info on her background and the current level of knowledge and organisation of BSAA.

    Let's what Sheva's bio says on the official website, it may help us a bit:

    Sheva Alomar is an agent with the BSAA West Africa Branch. She is assigned to the current mission to assist Chris Redfield, who is unfamiliar with the area. A versatile fighter, with extensive experience. Her ability to use firearms is on par with Chris. Her highly conditioned body allows her to pull physical attacks that Chris could never do.

    All right, so that means she can aim and fire like Chris, and has some Ada-style moves. It doesn't tell us anything about her experience with the bio weapons, though. Therefore, she might not have had any combat experience fighting bioweapons. Perhaps the only things she knows about it are Power Point presentations with some basic bio weapon intel at the BSAA branch office. She is extensively experienced, sure, but so were the Umbrella mercs who got slaughtered in RE3 because they never fought tons of Zombies and Hunters (etc) before. It all depends on whether she dealt with bio weapons before, or not.

    Or she does have the experience. We don't know. Any conjecture is futile because of this.

    * Sheva's parents are killed in a factory accident

    Hmm, and the later stages involve a factory...

    * Later she joins an Anti-Government Guerilla group, but is rescued by a government agency and sent to live in America

    Either she was forced to join the guerillas, or Capcom used a rather strange interpretation of the word "rescue". And it's in America where she learns to speak fluent UK English all the time. Mokay.

    * She joins the BSAA after graduating from a university

    Hmm, looks like I wasn't too far off the mark with my earlier predictions :). Either way, we don't have enough information to determine an in-game explanation for the Sheva AI we've observed so far.

    If the A.I. does turn out to be broken though, then I would rather that it was possible for her to die, and our punnishment for not protecting her was to have to continue the story without her assistance, rather than an abrupt Game Over screen.

    It would have to be horribly broken, then. I even got the Outbreak File 2 AI to work :).

    Ashley's occasional bit of stupidity is perhaps forgivable, since she has probably led a fairly luxurious kind of life-style and isn't used to having to make quick, fluid decisions.

    See, that's a perfectly plausible in-game explanation. We'll have to wait until march, 13th to find out if there's one for Sheva as well (or that the AI isn't bad to begin with).

    In Resident Evil 4, Ashley actually did as she was told, and indeed, I did occasionally find I was able to exploit this - often by using her as a sort of distraction/herding tool - if that makes any sense. It certainly helped make up for her inability to shoot or heal me. I didn't see much obedience from Sheva though. She sort of did what I wanted after a fashion, but it felt a hell of a lot more random to me. And sometimes she seemed to just change her mind about what she wanted to do.

    That's why I said she's a mix of Ashley and the Outbreak AI. The latter had a mind of their own, but they were still usable. The "changing her mind" bit probably has to do with another occurrence from the input stream taking priority. Learn how that works, and then you can ensure that she gets her priorities right (i.e. she does what you find important) virtually all the time.

    I suppose you could look at having to manage the A.I. character as being a sort of puzzle, but if so, it feels like an unintentional one. And when a puzzle looks a lot like an excuse for bad A.I. (I'm not saying this is the case, just how it looks - to me.), then I don't think that is a good thing. If it was intended to be a sort of puzzle-like layer to the game, then I think it is rediculously artificial. As I said, this is not a child we are supposed to be protecting, but an equally able-bodied colleague.

    Equally able-bodied, yes. But with the same type of bio weapon experience? Can't say that yet.

    The "puzzle" doesn't feel "unintentional" to me because it's an important in-game factor, very similar to enemy AI (which you also need to learn inside out). Important in-game factors are there be studied in order to milk them for as much as you can. Also, and
    trust me on this, Capcom are famous for slipping in "hidden weak spots" in their enemies. Once you discover them, a once very tough enemy becomes a piece of cake (just think of Krauser and the Combat Knife, for example). Experimenting around is quite fun, and it's only natural to extend this to companion AI as well. I really don't think Capcom is accidentally slipping up - there are far too many examples a la Krauser around.

    Well that's certainly true, and perhaps what you are saying here is a leeson that players like myself could do with learning. All I will say here though, is that in the case of the Resident Evil games, I've never felt this to be necessary. I suppose, however that it is never too late to introduce such a philosophy into the series. But again, this must not become an excuse for developers to create crappy tools.

    Trust me when I say that if you want to finish a RE game quickly, or just with the knife (+ handgun, possibly), you *will* be doing this kind of think work. That's why RE4 and RE5 "feel" perfectly fine to me.

    You sounded as though you probably aren't willing to be any more specific about what exactly it was you learned, so it's hard to know quite what you are not agreeing with. But I suppose fundimentally, what you are saying is, that if a player is willing to try out new things, then ultimately, they can gain a lot more satisfaction, than simply sitting down with a game an essentially playing it on auto-pilot.

    Correct, which is why I'm not a fan of auto-pilot enablers such as auto aim, auto-pickup, run+gun and the like. It's okay for me if they are necessary, but not if they're simply plugged in to get the so-called "key" instant player control gratification, making everything too easy. I generally tend not to play such games.

    You are right, but from what I am understanding here (and I may well be off the mark), the scene in question seems to be evocative of historically bad imagery. For people who recognise this imagery, the context or explanation of it may well be irrelavent - irrational as that may seem to other people.

    Even those people should first get the entire picture before crying havoc and slitting the proverbial throat. I like to think we're
    civilised, thus any possible misunderstandings should be cleared out in a civil manner, possibly over a court of law. It is also no real business of ours - it's between Capcom and the people who are offended at the imagery to settle the situation legally, and rationally. I'm no lawyer, so I have no idea how something like that would play out.

    However, personally, I think we're not talking about religious taboos being broken here (such as in a certain "picture of the prophet" case), but rather a depiction not equaling, but closely resembling certain evocative imagery from mankind's cruel past. I think that those who want to tell a story via graphical means are entitled to show such imagery if they treat it with due respect.

    However, if they aim for a "picture shock", then they'll have to take the consequences, just like Picasso so many years ago.

    Exactly. The overall lesson to be learned here is perhaps to wait for the full game to contextualise these things - and I suppose that also goes for many of the other points we have raised.

    Yes. All the things I've said, which aren't based on gaming experience, are merely conjecture and personal opinion. This is just a preview, and it is too early to properly determine certain things. Same goes for the reviewer too, who appears to have reached some premature conclusions in the article.

    I hope my other responses made some sense to you, even if you still don't agree with them.

    Of course. You are entitled to your opinion (whether it makes sense or not :), and I certainly don't know everything. I should probably never have said anything here about Resident Evil and controls and such, but because of all the things I've done in those games, the philosophy they gave rise to and the amount of fun I had doing them, I just can't help myself (trust me when I say it is very satisfying to defeat the mighty Verdugo with nothing but a door, or to finish RE4 using only grenades and a single Rocket Launcher, and all this with "antique" control limitations, apparently).

    But hey, let's counterbalance silly gaming philosophies with ire: no Merchant in RE5, only a lifeless "shop screen"?! GurrRRR!

    Off to play Dead Rising.
    Edited by 2 at 07/02/09 @ 17:23

  • thecoo1est #290 3 years ago

    Wow , your unbelievable, your saying this game is racist yet you say the black heroin doesnt talk right? So you write for euro gamer, Ive met a couple fine black chicks from london and they talked pretty fucking proper, yeah they kinda sounded like Lara Croft and the accent she has, but I think your the racist for saying that, your saying she doesnt sound black, and yeah compared to some black women in america your right but they have basically invented their own language over here, I would expect a black girl from london to sound proper given thats like the area the english language was invented.

  • fiery_jackass #291 3 years ago

    "you're"

  • VMerken #292 3 years ago

    Thecoo1est.

    Wow , your unbelievable, your saying this game is racist yet you say the black heroin doesnt talk right? So you write for euro gamer, Ive met a couple fine black chicks from london and they talked pretty fucking proper, yeah they kinda sounded like Lara Croft and the accent she has, but I think your the racist for saying that, your saying she doesnt sound black, and yeah compared to some black women in america your right but they have basically invented their own language over here, I would expect a black girl from london to sound proper given thats like the area the english language was invented.

    This comes straight from Sheva's bio from the official Capcom site:

    Later she joins an Anti-Government Guerilla group, but is rescued by a government agency and sent to live in America

    If Sheva was sent to live in the UK, then yeah, she would probably end up talking UK English. But she was sent to live in America, which isn't exactly the place where you're bathed in UK English...
    Edited by 1 at 07/02/09 @ 17:15

  • Bulbatron #293 3 years ago

    Hello again, VMerken.

    "If the Capcom developers deem that it is required in one of their games, they'll include it. Even in Resident Evil.

    And I do think players would want jumping and crouching, because that's what they get in any FPS, plus presumably human characters (their arguments) should be able to jump and crouch and look around corners and so on. Unless of course, the players have double standards and only want the easy moves, you know, the ones they can always fall back to in case of an emergency.

    This can be discussed until the end of the world, but as long as the developers don't include, it just might be more productive to use the tools you get. And perhaps get some enjoyment/rewarding feeling out of it.

    Incidentally, jumping can be a very powerful, evasive tool. Just play Dead Rising and you'll know what I know."

    But this isn't a FPS - and this isn't even a traditional TPS, but it is more like a TPS than an FPS, so I think that some players' desire to be able to move and shoot at the same time is understandable - if misguided. If you really have encountered players who want to be able to jump, crouch and look round corners etc, then I can well understand your frustration at this. Being able to move and shoot would change the game mechanics somewhat, but have all of these other traditional TPS moves would really make the whole experience completely different.

    I have played Dead Rising (good game, by the way) and so on this occasion, I do know what you know.

    "Because they just might like to keep the game rules the same - "

    But they haven't, have they? Admittedly they have kept the rules of control the same, but not the rules of how the game actually plays. They completely changed pretty much everything for Resident Evil 4. I suppose they didn't change the controls because, as we both agree on, the DO still work. But for people new to the series, this will probably only serve to drive them away again, and this seems a shame to me.

    "Well, for me, too. After a few initial plays, they come naturally as far as I'm concerned. But I'm looking at the entire picture here. Controls have two faces. On the one hand, you have the control interface (X makes you jump, Square makes you run, etc). There, you expect that the controller responds exactly as you have read in the manual (barring typos). If you read X = Jump, then in the game, pressing X would mean exactly Jump.

    Because this is the technical face of the controls, I think it is possible to establish some sort of "control standard", for example: if the controls do exactly what they say in the manual, and are not completely random (whouch would mean that your cat would have the same chances of completing the game as you) or have enormous delays (if it takes 10 seconds for your moves to register, i.e. you press jump and kick and then have to wait 20 seconds for the jump and the kick, this might not be desirable).

    I think it is safe to say that RE5's control interface does what the control setup says it does, and it is very responsive. No problems there.

    The other face of the controls is what they actually do in the game, the freedom they offer you in the game environment. Their functionality. As such, the controls become part of the game rules. They're like commandments: in a crate pushing game, the controls are implemented in such a way that you have the commandment, "Thou shalt not pull the crates"

    Here, I think people should have the courtesy of letting the developers have the last word. They make the game, they get to decide the rules. In RE5, Capcom decided, while defining their control setup, "Thou shalt not run+gun", "Thou shalt not Jump (unless the game offers it). And we should take that game and play it by those rules. Because that's how the developers intended it. Because they set up the rules which lead to the challenges the developers want to give you.

    Don't agree with the rules imposed by the controls? Then play another game, one you'll like!"

    Agreed, though I don't see the relevence of the discussion of the technical face of the controls. It's not that I disagree, it's just that it all seems like obvious common sense which surely nobody needs to be told.

    "I don't think it has anything to do with right or wrong. Was the inventor of chess wrong by letting the king only walk for one tile per move? Was the inventor of soccer wrong by limiting ball control to the feet of the field players? Was the guy who coded crate pushing puzzles wrong for not implementing crate pulling?

    You tell me. I like to think that "it is what it is".

    As for the economic factors you mention, that too may be part of the development process and eventually lead the developers to implement "other" controls. I'm not an expert, but such things will probably involve "focus groups", "targeted marketing" and "statistical analysis". However, that doesn't suddenly make the developers - or you - right or wrong all of a sudden. And no matter what happens, I'll just stick to what I always do anyway: read the manual, practise and break the game :). Their game, their rules."

    Your chess analogy is a good one. It is clear, vivid and simple. I don't see how anybody could argue against this. And as you say, a quick read of the manual is all you need to at least begin to get a grip on the controls. If you can't get used to them, then go elsewhere. This is one reason why demos are important. It gives people a chance to sample the controls before parting with their cash.

    "It's always fun to look at things from different angles. However, I see no point in this other point of view. Either play with what you get, or play something else that has what you want. And if you can't find anything at all, then instead of wasting everyone's time with pointless whining, make your own killer game and show the boys at Capcom and the rest of the world how it's *really* done."

    Here I cannot agree with you. I think it is bad to simply say there is no point to the other point of view, when clearly there is a point - even if, from our point of view, it is misguided or mistaken. Saying that people shouldn't complain about the controls (or any other game-play related factor) but just work with what they've got or go elsewhere is, in my opinion, fine in theory, but by that logic, surely we shouldn't bother having reviews or opinions, since we should just play the game as it is and never look at any flaws it may be seen by some to have. The developers have the right to set their own rules, but as potential customers, players have equal right to voice their reasons why they may well choose not to spend their money on a game they feel does not work properly in some way.

    "It' s not just the demo we've played that I was refering to. I also specifically targeted the reviewer of this article. He had a limited time playing through an early 3-chapter build, he had only a basic knowledge of the controls (not knowing about Locate Partner is a hint), yet his observations of Sheva's AI while playing this briefly led him to the conclusion that the AI isn't good. I don't buy that - if you don't quite know what you're doing, don't be surprised if things snowball into something bad.

    Why am I not buying it? Because of my own experience. First time I played Outbreak, for example, my thoughts were along the lines of, "How on Earth am I ever going to finish a chapter with these morons alive"? But then, as you go through the chapter again, you begin to notice things. And discover more things. Suddenly, they aren't so bad at all. And a few plays later, you get them to do virtually all the work for you.

    Sheva just might be like that. But, we don't know until we've learned the intricacies of her A.I. throughout the entire game."

    The writer of the article may have only had a limited time playing through his demo, but it was still more time and more of the game than you have had yourself*, and yet you still seem unwilling to believe anything he says about the game that doesn't paint it in a positive light. I agree that his ignorance of the 'locate partner' button was remiss, but that does not automatically invalidate his observations about the A.I. If, having played an equal ammount of the game to the writer of the article, you still disagree with his analysis of the state of the A.I. partner, then fair enough, and I think then your point would feel a lot more unbiased.

    *If you actually have played this demo, then please accept my apologies here, but by the sounds of it, it seems like you haven't.

    "AI isn't just Sheva, it's also present in your enemies - as such, it's *vital* to learn how to use the AI to your advantage."

    Absolutely true, but you expect the enemies to try and kill you, and you expect to try and look for weaknesses in their behaviour. I personally don't expect to have to do exactly the same thing for the person who is supposed to be helping me stay alive. I expect to have to help her out from time to time, not to have to constantly work around her A.I. deficiencies.

    "I understand that you're trying to evaluate Sheva's AI in light of what she is and you are right, she should have a more mature behaviour than, say, Ashley. However, in order to do this evaluation, we need more info on her background and the current level of knowledge and organisation of BSAA.

    Let's what Sheva's bio says on the official website, it may help us a bit:

    Sheva Alomar is an agent with the BSAA West Africa Branch. She is assigned to the current mission to assist Chris Redfield, who is unfamiliar with the area. A versatile fighter, with extensive experience. Her ability to use firearms is on par with Chris. Her highly conditioned body allows her to pull physical attacks that Chris could never do.

    All right, so that means she can aim and fire like Chris, and has some Ada-style moves. It doesn't tell us anything about her experience with the bio weapons, though. Therefore, she might not have had any combat experience fighting bioweapons. Perhaps the only things she knows about it are Power Point presentations with some basic bio weapon intel at the BSAA branch office. She is extensively experienced, sure, but so were the Umbrella mercs who got slaughtered in RE3 because they never fought tons of Zombies and Hunters (etc) before. It all depends on whether she dealt with bio weapons before, or not.

    Or she does have the experience. We don't know. Any conjecture is futile because of this.

    * Sheva's parents are killed in a factory accident

    Hmm, and the later stages involve a factory...

    * Later she joins an Anti-Government Guerilla group, but is rescued by a government agency and sent to live in America

    Either she was forced to join the guerillas, or Capcom used a rather strange interpretation of the word "rescue". And it's in America where she learns to speak fluent UK English all the time. Mokay.

    * She joins the BSAA after graduating from a university

    Hmm, looks like I wasn't too far off the mark with my earlier predictions :). Either way, we don't have enough information to determine an in-game explanation for the Sheva AI we've observed so far."

    Oh yes! I remember you made that guess about Sheva having graduated from a university and then joining BSAA! Good call! It is a good idea to consult her bio to try and justify the possible flaws in the A.I, but it comes to something when you have to look it up on the website in order to do so. If this information is all presented on the game disc at some point then it might have more merit. But that will not stop it from feeling like an excuse for the state of Sheva's A.I. And I'm sorry, but good though Capcom are, I find it hard to credit the idea that they put that much nuance into Sheva's A.I. so that it would so perfectly be reflected in her behaviour - though I'm sure they would have done their best to make it as good and authentic-feeling as they could. It's just that from what admittedly little I have played, it just doesn't seem good enough. Reading the article did seem to me to tally wth my experience.

    "It would have to be horribly broken, then. I even got the Outbreak File 2 AI to work :)."

    Well, as I've said, most people do not want to have to learn how the A.I. works. It is A.I. - it should just work anyway. That does not show a lack of commitment to the game in my opinion, it just means that people want to concentrate on the story and the action within the story, without having to worry about what the supposed 'A.I.' is thinking. You are clearly a big fan of Capcom and the Resident Evil series, so you are willing to put in that extra effort in order to get those extra layers of nuance out of it, but not everybody wants to put that level of commitment into every single game they play. That doesn't make them in some way shallow or intellectually challenged, it means they just want to enjoy the overall experience without worrying about the way the damn thing is programmed.

    "See, that's a perfectly plausible in-game explanation. We'll have to wait until march, 13th to find out if there's one for Sheva as well (or that the AI isn't bad to begin with)."

    Ashley's programming seems comparitively simple. I'm not saying the actual act of programming her was easy. I'm just saying the results are clear.

    "That's why I said she's a mix of Ashley and the Outbreak AI. The latter had a mind of their own, but they were still usable. The "changing her mind" bit probably has to do with another occurrence from the input stream taking priority. Learn how that works, and then you can ensure that she gets her priorities right (i.e. she does what you find important) virtually all the time."

    Well as I said, most players (and I have to say, that does include myself here) don't really want to have to worry about how the A.I. works, we just want to enjoy the story, the action, and even the input from the A.I. without having to worry about the way it was programmed. If it is good A.I. then this really shouldn't be necessary. At least, not that often anyway.

    "Equally able-bodied, yes. But with the same type of bio weapon experience? Can't say that yet.

    The "puzzle" doesn't feel "unintentional" to me because it's an important in-game factor, very similar to enemy AI (which you also need to learn inside out). Important in-game factors are there be studied in order to milk them for as much as you can. Also, and
    trust me on this, Capcom are famous for slipping in "hidden weak spots" in their enemies. Once you discover them, a once very tough enemy becomes a piece of cake (just think of Krauser and the Combat Knife, for example). Experimenting around is quite fun, and it's only natural to extend this to companion AI as well. I really don't think Capcom is accidentally slipping up - there are far too many examples a la Krauser around."

    Yes, but the enemies are actually supposed to be a puzzle of a sort, in that you need to learn their vulnerabilities, and this is a natural part of many games. Realising that Krauser was vulnerable to the combat know was great, but that is all part of what enemies are about - working around them somehow. But having to learn how not to get screwed by somebody who is supposed to be your artificially intelligent ally? That makes no sense to me.

    "Trust me when I say that if you want to finish a RE game quickly, or just with the knife (+ handgun, possibly), you *will* be doing this kind of think work. That's why RE4 and RE5 "feel" perfectly fine to me."

    But many people don't want to play the game in these specialised ways. They just want to play the game as intended - using all the weapons available - without the A.I. grabbing them all first, forcing you to have to trade them with her when you want both characters to be concentrating their supposedly combined efforts on tackling the enemies in smart and intelligent ways.

    "Correct, which is why I'm not a fan of auto-pilot enablers such as auto aim, auto-pickup, run+gun and the like. It's okay for me if they are necessary, but not if they're simply plugged in to get the so-called "key" instant player control gratification, making everything too easy. I generally tend not to play such games."

    Thanks, at least I got that right. But I'm still intrigued to learn what it was specifically that you learned? :-)

    "Even those people should first get the entire picture before crying havoc and slitting the proverbial throat. I like to think we're
    civilised, thus any possible misunderstandings should be cleared out in a civil manner, possibly over a court of law. It is also no real business of ours - it's between Capcom and the people who are offended at the imagery to settle the situation legally, and rationally. I'm no lawyer, so I have no idea how something like that would play out.

    However, personally, I think we're not talking about religious taboos being broken here (such as in a certain "picture of the prophet" case), but rather a depiction not equaling, but closely resembling certain evocative imagery from mankind's cruel past. I think that those who want to tell a story via graphical means are entitled to show such imagery if they treat it with due respect.

    However, if they aim for a "picture shock", then they'll have to take the consequences, just like Picasso so many years ago."

    Well I wasn't talking about religion either. What made you bring it up? Was there something in the overall argument about this image in relation to religion that I missed - or misunderstood? 'A depiction not equaling, but closely resembling certain evocative imagery from mankind's cruel past' was exactly what I was trying to ask if people were worrying about? Where did the religion thing come from?

    Hopefully, once this image and the others the writer of the article hints at, are given some context, people will understand why they are there.

    "Yes. All the things I've said, which aren't based on gaming experience, are merely conjecture and personal opinion. This is just a preview, and it is too early to properly determine certain things. Same goes for the reviewer too, who appears to have reached some premature conclusions in the article."

    In as far as that we are all lacking total experience to completely judge the game one way or the other at the moment, I agree with you. While I'm sure the writer of the article could have done with more time with the game to get to grips with it, he can only write about what he sees - and he has seen more than we have at the moment*. And that is after all another reason for demos - to help us to make a judgement about the final game, which will then lead us to decide whether, based on that judgement, we will feel we are getting our money's worth with it.

    "Of course. You are entitled to your opinion (whether it makes sense or not :), and I certainly don't know everything. I should probably never have said anything here about Resident Evil and controls and such, but because of all the things I've done in those games, the philosophy they gave rise to and the amount of fun I had doing them, I just can't help myself (trust me when I say it is very satisfying to defeat the mighty Verdugo with nothing but a door, or to finish RE4 using only grenades and a single Rocket Launcher, and all this with "antique" control limitations, apparently)."

    That sort of goes back to my guesses that you are a big fan of Capcom and the Resident Evil series, and are therefore eager to try things in more than one way. Not everybody can be a big fan of every game (I'm sure the same is true of yourself) and I am sure very few people, if anybody sticks solely to buying games they are big fans of. So not everybody who buys Resident Evil 5 is going to be a big, commited fan. They might just want to enjoy the experience, without worrying about the programming behind it.

    However, for this reason, I can easily imagine how frustrating it must be to hear people of varying degrees of knawledge about the series, make statements about it or slag it off for seemingly stupid reasons. I certainly know that's how I feel about things I am commited to, and I would be equally commited to defending them.

    I hope you haven't found any of my comments to be insulting or patronising or anything like that. Sometimes text doesn't always emmote how you want something to be understood.

    "But hey, let's counterbalance silly gaming philosophies with ire: no Merchant in RE5, only a lifeless "shop screen"?! GurrRRR!

    Off to play Dead Rising."

    The lack of a Merchant equivelant does seem a shame. Maybe they just decided that having this random Merchant in the middle of all this death and desaster was a bit unrealistic. I wonder if the shop screen will have some kind of in-game explanation.

    As for Dead Rising - great game. I still haven't got the Lazer Sword - I'm a bit nervous about playing Infinity Mode. :-) I really enjoyed both 72 Hour Mode and Overtime Mode though. Especially after I got the Real Mea Buster (that's what it was called, right?).
    Edited by 4 at 07/02/09 @ 17:52

  • captain-future #294 3 years ago

    wouldn't it be MORE racist if they had a white dude and a black dudette shooting ONLY white zombies/dudes in Africa?

  • VMerken #295 3 years ago

    Hi, Bulbatron.

    But this isn't a FPS - and this isn't even a traditional TPS, but it is more like a TPS than an FPS, so I think that some players' desire to be able to move and shoot at the same time is understandable - if misguided. If you really have encountered players who want to be able to jump, crouch and look round corners etc, then I can well understand your frustration at this. Being able to move and shoot would change the game mechanics somewhat, but have all of these other traditional TPS moves would really make the whole experience completely different.

    I don't consider Resident Evil 5 a TPS. It's a game played in Third Person Perspective.

    I have played Dead Rising (good game, by the way) and so on this occasion, I do know what you know.

    Yes, I come to love Dead Rising to bits. The control scheme proves Capcom can implement the type of Controlz people are Whining about here. In that game, they fit much better than in Resident Evil, which tries to be somewhat serious whereas Dead Rising is all about going comics style crazy.

    But they haven't, have they? Admittedly they have kept the rules of control the same, but not the rules of how the game actually plays. They completely changed pretty much everything for Resident Evil 4. I suppose they didn't change the controls because, as we both agree on, the DO still work. But for people new to the series, this will probably only serve to drive them away again, and this seems a shame to me.

    Actually, the game elements in RE4 (including the control setup) contain at least those of its predecessors, but the team focused on pushing the player forward rather than promoting backtracking. And to be quite honest, that was a great move. Backtracking can be a chore, even if you plot an optimal route. They also added some fun new elements, such as a (limited) item economy and finding secrets by exploring the area (and possibly shooting hard-to-hit targets).

    I do not know if the 5 team omitted the older game elements completely and just focused on action, whether or not they expanded on the new elements from 4 - for that, we really need to see the entire game for that.

    Anyway, we are now talking about rules other than those imposed by the controls, and there it's REALLY the developer's business, and the developer's business ONLY. And again, those may change as they will, leading to new (types of) challenges, which may be really good. And yes, they will be such that we have to face them with the controls given to us.

    Agreed, though I don't see the relevence of the discussion of the technical face of the controls. It's not that I disagree, it's just that it all seems like obvious common sense which surely nobody needs to be told.

    It's not that trivial, I think. It is possible to get these two faces of control confused. And then call the controls "broken" because they can't strafe with them yet technically, the input device does its job perfectly. This is confusing - just what does "broken" really mean? Technically broken (more or less objective) or functionally broken (subjective)? So to settle our thoughts, I thought I'd point out the distinction.

    Here I cannot agree with you. I think it is bad to simply say there is no point to the other point of view, when clearly there is a point - even if, from our point of view, it is misguided or mistaken. Saying that people shouldn't complain about the controls (or any other game-play related factor) but just work with what they've got or go elsewhere is, in my opinion, fine in theory, but by that logic, surely we shouldn't bother having reviews or opinions, since we should just play the game as it is and never look at any flaws it may be seen by some to have. The developers have the right to set their own rules, but as potential customers, players have equal right to voice their reasons why they may well choose not to spend their money on a game they feel does not work properly in some way.

    Let's review what "the other point of view" is, what it is we're talking about: we're talking about people not liking the fact that the controls won't let them run+gun (or jump, or auto-aim, ...), therefore they conclude that the controls and, through induction, the entire game is "broken", "last-gen", "a steaming pile", "not Game X" (and so on) and as a result they may not spend money on it unless Capcom "fixes it right away".

    Maybe I should nuance: the conclusion of the other point of view is false, and therefore there I find there is no point to this other view.

    People are free to express their opinion and review the hell out of things. They are free to draw conclusions and act upon those conclusions. However, I am free to point out that the above conclusion is false because the controls are not "broken", because that's how the game developers designed them and that's how they want the game to be played. Because of this, there is also nothing to "fix".

    An "other point of view" I would agree with, would be this: "These controls don't let me run+gun, I like run+gun in my games so I conclude that I don't like this game. Ergo no money for Capcom".

    Don't blame the controls. It's pointless.

    The writer of the article may have only had a limited time playing through his demo, but it was still more time and more of the game than you have had yourself*, and yet you still seem unwilling to believe anything he says about the game that doesn't paint it in a positive light. I agree that his ignorance of the 'locate partner' button was remiss, but that does not automatically invalidate his observations about the A.I. If, having played an equal ammount of the game to the writer of the article, you still disagree with his analysis of the state of the A.I. partner, then fair enough, and I think then your point would feel a lot more unbiased.

    No, I haven't played 'his' demo. But, my experience with games of this type is large enough to formulate a very strong suspicion that he did not have any understanding of the AI at the time of writing. From reading the review, this seems to be the case - the things he formulates are typical instances which occur in first playthroughs (I do not see any depth in his AI statements). If this is not the case and he has rigorous arguments that the AI is really bananas, then the reviewer should reformulate his article because he sure isn't presenting any convincing evidence.

    And hey, there are things in the review I do agree with. Read my comments to find them, and there are probably more (those in the article I haven't said anything particular about).

    Absolutely true, but you expect the enemies to try and kill you, and you expect to try and look for weaknesses in their behaviour. I personally don't expect to have to do exactly the same thing for the person who is supposed to be helping me stay alive. I expect to have to help her out from time to time, not to have to constantly work around her A.I. deficiencies.

    Really? So you don't need to know the strengths and weaknesses of your colleagues in order to work more efficiently with them as a team? (and Sheva has deficiencies, but she also has her strengths. Being able to fire a gun and heal Chris are not quite
    deficiencies)

    It is a good idea to consult her bio to try and justify the possible flaws in the A.I, but it comes to something when you have to look it up on the website in order to do so. If this information is all presented on the game disc at some point then it might have more merit.

    Uhm, you can be pretty sure that you will see this bio in the manual. Except that we don't have a manual yet. In any case, the info is entirely valid and has all the merit you want, because barring any typos or human error it is from the official Resident Evil 5 site which means it is official information and the in-game truth.

    But that will not stop it from feeling like an excuse for the state of Sheva's A.I. And I'm sorry, but good though Capcom are, I find it hard to credit the idea that they put that much nuance into Sheva's A.I. so that it would so perfectly be reflected in her behaviour - though I'm sure they would have done their best to make it as good and authentic-feeling as they could. It's just that from what admittedly little I have played, it just doesn't seem good enough. Reading the article did seem to me to tally wth my experience.

    Well, that's your opinion. I stated mine and yes, it is conjecture, as I stated. Everything about it is since we haven't seen the entire game yet (remember our first exchange of words)? Until the march 13th, everything we are saying now about Sheva's actual efficiency as an AI is grasping at straws.

    Well, as I've said, most people do not want to have to learn how the A.I. works. It is A.I. - it should just work anyway. That does not show a lack of commitment to the game in my opinion, it just means that people want to concentrate on the story and the action within the story, without having to worry about what the supposed 'A.I.' is thinking.

    In other words, for the story's sake, the game should be easy for everyone to finish without any frustration whatsoever. Here's what I think about that:

    Want to concentrate on story? Go read a book, watch a movie or read a video game synopsis. Video games are about the "game" part, the story a distant second. The "action within the story" is determined by the game rules, which are determined by the developers to offer you the challenges they want to offer you. It is what it is.

    Is the action within the story so tough that it is keeping you from seeing the entire story and you really really really want to see it? Well, then there may be quite a few options you might want to consider: practise/face the challenge/achieve victory, restart in an easier difficulty setting, ask a friend what's up next, search for hints, read a guide book, enter cheat mode, ... numerous options, really.

    And in RE5's case, if it resembles RE4 somewhat, it will have an adaptive difficulty level, numerous continue points, each chapter neatly broken up into several scenes. I do think most players will get to see all of RE5's story without too much trouble.

    You are clearly a big fan of Capcom and the Resident Evil series,

    You may want to look up my profile on this site. However, I'm not a big fan of Capcom explicitly - I'm a big fan of Shinji Mikami, and he happened to make some games for Capcom.

    so you are willing to put in that extra effort in order to get those extra layers of nuance out of it, but not everybody wants to put that level of commitment into every single game they play.

    Me neither, there is not enough time. But in the games I do go all the way, I do it because it is rewarding and a lot of fun. It just so happens that the main Resident Evils have been one long journey of the type of fun I enjoy.

    However, as far as designing games is concerned, having "must be completed easily by everyone" is not the absolute alpha and omega of of game design which MUST be in everything. Other games are possible without it. Don't like that? Then there are plenty of other games to choose from and waste your time on.

    That doesn't make them in some way shallow or intellectually challenged, it means they just want to enjoy the overall experience without worrying about the way the damn thing is programmed.

    Where did I say "shallow" or "intellectually challenged"? All I do is calling out the Controlz Whining and leave it at that.

    Ashley's programming seems comparitively simple. I'm not saying the actual act of programming her was easy. I'm just saying the results are clear.

    The results are clear with every AI out there - your point being?

    Well as I said, most players (and I have to say, that does include myself here) don't really want to have to worry about how the A.I. works, we just want to enjoy the story, the action, and even the input from the A.I. without having to worry about the way it was programmed. If it is good A.I. then this really shouldn't be necessary. At least, not that often anyway.

    Not that often? Honestly? Out of curiosity, please enlighten me about these frequent occurences of Sheva's AI failure (and with that, I mean occurrences which appear in the majority of the games you have played in the demo - real patterns of fail). Personally, the only bad recurring thing I've seen her do in the demo is not immediately picking up the items I wanted her to pick up because she was distracted by enemies.

    But many people don't want to play the game in these specialised ways. They just want to play the game as intended - using all the weapons available - without the A.I. grabbing them all first, forcing you to have to trade them with her when you want both characters to be concentrating their supposedly combined efforts on tackling the enemies in smart and intelligent ways.

    Well, then next time, why don't you get to the weapon you want to pick up first? Just a thought.

    Thanks, at least I got that right. But I'm still intrigued to learn what it was specifically that you learned? :-)

    That "instant player control gratification" is key in game design.

    Well I wasn't talking about religion either. What made you bring it up? Was there something in the overall argument about this image in relation to religion that I missed - or misunderstood? 'A depiction not equaling, but closely resembling certain evocative imagery from mankind's cruel past' was exactly what I was trying to ask if people were worrying about? Where did the religion thing come from?

    I brought it up because it was also about imagery which had the potential to enrage important groups of people (and it did). However, there the motivation was based on religion, which is different from the situation here - the basis of religion is considered holy by its believers, whereas the imagery in RE5 may incite groups of people who interpret it with respect to events from man's cruel past. Something holy is considered universally true and unshakable by its believers, events from man's cruel past can be remembered and processed in such a way that they'll never happen again and the parties involved may eventually trust eachother again.

    Did that make any sense?

    In as far as that we are all lacking total experience to completely judge the game one way or the other at the moment, I agree with you. While I'm sure the writer of the article could have done with more time with the game to get to grips with it, he can only write about what he sees - and he has seen more than we have at the moment.

    Only a little more than us. He saw more geometry, more music, more enemies, more of the plot. As far as I can "read" the article, he didn't see substantially more of the workings of the game - only one instance of it.

    That sort of goes back to my guesses that you are a big fan of Capcom and the Resident Evil series, and are therefore eager to try things in more than one way.

    And the eagerness to try things in more than one way is tied to being a fan of the Resident Evil series, how? I try things in more than one way in ANY game I play (and no, I do not play Resident Evil only). I'm always looking for the depth behind games, and original approaches to them.

    However, for this reason, I can easily imagine how frustrating it must be to hear people of varying degrees of knawledge about the series, make statements about it or slag it off for seemingly stupid reasons. I certainly know that's how I feel about things I am commited to, and I would be equally commited to defending them.

    Well, I believe my criticism to be a little more universal than just Resident Evil. I believe that what I said about Controlz Whining applies to every single game out there. But yeah, I think I know a fair bit about Resident Evil, so that's why I have some confidence in my statements here and, well, state them. Plus, I've seen people Controlz Whining about Resident Evil since the very first game for years on end, including reviewers, for basically inane reasons. And at some point, the fuse gets short.

    I hope you haven't found any of my comments to be insulting or patronising or anything like that. Sometimes text doesn't always emmote how you want something to be understood.

    Of course, don't worry.

    The lack of a Merchant equivelant does seem a shame. Maybe they just decided that having this random Merchant in the middle of all this death and desaster was a bit unrealistic. I wonder if the shop screen will have some kind of in-game explanation.

    Yes, an abstract shop screen is a much more realistic choice. The reason I like the Merchant is because that one added a genuine sense of cheesy humour into the game. I like cheese. Oh well, can't win them all.

    As for Dead Rising - great game. I still haven't got the Lazer Sword - I'm a bit nervous about playing Infinity Mode. :-) I really enjoyed both 72 Hour Mode and Overtime Mode though. Especially after I got the Real Mea Buster (that's what it was called, right?).

    Yes. Personally, I'm thinking about beating the Infinity Mode world record. I also did a little experimenting to see how many Achievements you can unlock in a single 72 hours/Overtime playthrough starting from level 1 (about 44 I reckon). Don't be afraid of unlocking the Laser Sword. All it takes is 5 days, and there's enough food in Willamette mall to last you exactly 7 days and 7 hours - no need to fight survivors or psychopaths. Of course, if it's Red Rings of Death you fear...
    Edited by 2 at 07/02/09 @ 21:25

  • bad09 #296 3 years ago

    Wow so much debate for such an average game.

    I picked up CVx yesterday - still awesome, Capcom can keep this festering turd racist or not....

  • mukki #297 3 years ago

    totally agree on the controls AI and racist undertones...

    is the tearing still there? vsync prob?

    pre ordered this but debating if I should cancel order...

  • Bulbatron #298 3 years ago

    VMerken.

    "I don't consider Resident Evil 5 a TPS. It's a game played in Third Person Perspective."

    Then I suppose it all comes down to how any given played decides to classify a game. I think you have a point. I can't decide whether I fully agree or not. Either way, I don't want to get drawn into this one. These exchanges are pretty long as it is! :-)

    "Yes, I come to love Dead Rising to bits. The control scheme proves Capcom can implement the type of Controlz people are Whining about here. In that game, they fit much better than in Resident Evil, which tries to be somewhat serious whereas Dead Rising is all about going comics style crazy."

    I've certainly never had a problem with the controls of Dead Rising.

    "Actually, the game elements in RE4 (including the control setup) contain at least those of its predecessors, but the team focused on pushing the player forward rather than promoting backtracking. And to be quite honest, that was a great move. Backtracking can be a chore, even if you plot an optimal route. They also added some fun new elements, such as a (limited) item economy and finding secrets by exploring the area (and possibly shooting hard-to-hit targets).

    I do not know if the 5 team omitted the older game elements completely and just focused on action, whether or not they expanded on the new elements from 4 - for that, we really need to see the entire game for that.

    Anyway, we are now talking about rules other than those imposed by the controls, and there it's REALLY the developer's business, and the developer's business ONLY. And again, those may change as they will, leading to new (types of) challenges, which may be really good. And yes, they will be such that we have to face them with the controls given to us."

    It may be the developers who (quite rightly) have the final say on the controls, but it's hardly their business only, since their customers are the ones who have to learn to use them. But yes, overall I think you're right here too. Your illustration above shows that yes indeed, Capcom haven't really changed the rules for controls that much at all for Resident Evil 4. Some may argue that due to the new camera position, you don't ge to see what's behind you, but I think the additions possible with the new camera more than make up for whatever small things may be missing.

    And I also have to agree with you about back-tracking. It never bothered me a great deal in the previous Resident Evil games, but to have eliminated it to the extent they did for Resident Evil 4, was indeed a welcome move. The sense of constant progress was great.

    "It's not that trivial, I think. It is possible to get these two faces of control confused. And then call the controls "broken" because they can't strafe with them yet technically, the input device does its job perfectly. This is confusing - just what does "broken" really mean? Technically broken (more or less objective) or functionally broken (subjective)? So to settle our thoughts, I thought I'd point out the distinction."

    Fair enough.

    "Let's review what "the other point of view" is, what it is we're talking about: we're talking about people not liking the fact that the controls won't let them run+gun (or jump, or auto-aim, ...), therefore they conclude that the controls and, through induction, the entire game is "broken", "last-gen", "a steaming pile", "not Game X" (and so on) and as a result they may not spend money on it unless Capcom "fixes it right away".

    Maybe I should nuance: the conclusion of the other point of view is false, and therefore there I find there is no point to this other view.

    People are free to express their opinion and review the hell out of things. They are free to draw conclusions and act upon those conclusions. However, I am free to point out that the above conclusion is false because the controls are not "broken", because that's how the game developers designed them and that's how they want the game to be played. Because of this, there is also nothing to "fix".

    An "other point of view" I would agree with, would be this: "These controls don't let me run+gun, I like run+gun in my games so I conclude that I don't like this game. Ergo no money for Capcom".

    Don't blame the controls. It's pointless."

    Again, I agree with you. I suppose the only difference for me is, I don't think I could ever bring myself to condemn another point of view quite as rigidly as that. Well, not in public, anyway. But however you choose to state it, in my opinion, you are right.

    "No, I haven't played 'his' demo. But, my experience with games of this type is large enough to formulate a very strong suspicion that he did not have any understanding of the AI at the time of writing. From reading the review, this seems to be the case - the things he formulates are typical instances which occur in first playthroughs (I do not see any depth in his AI statements). If this is not the case and he has rigorous arguments that the AI is really bananas, then the reviewer should reformulate his article because he sure isn't presenting any convincing evidence.

    And hey, there are things in the review I do agree with. Read my comments to find them, and there are probably more (those in the article I haven't said anything particular about)."

    I suppose that makes sense. It does sometimes take more than one playthrough of a game to get to grips with it. Knowing what is coming up ahead of time also help here as well.

    "Really? So you don't need to know the strengths and weaknesses of your colleagues in order to work more efficiently with them as a team? (and Sheva has deficiencies, but she also has her strengths. Being able to fire a gun and heal Chris are not quite
    deficiencies)"

    No, but getting herself chopped up by enemies rather than running away certainly are deficiencies. I have summoned her to me at times, only for her to stay exactly where she was, amid a group of enemies. Being able to fire a gun and heal Chris are clearly very handy for the player. I'm sure I conceeded this point already at some point.

    "Uhm, you can be pretty sure that you will see this bio in the manual. Except that we don't have a manual yet. In any case, the info is entirely valid and has all the merit you want, because barring any typos or human error it is from the official Resident Evil 5 site which means it is official information and the in-game truth."

    Once again, good point about her bio being in the manual. Whether this will serve as an explanation as to her strengths and weaknesses is another issue, though I suppose it will probably go at least some way towards doing so.

    "In other words, for the story's sake, the game should be easy for everyone to finish without any frustration whatsoever. Here's what I think about that:

    Want to concentrate on story? Go read a book, watch a movie or read a video game synopsis. Video games are about the "game" part, the story a distant second. The "action within the story" is determined by the game rules, which are determined by the developers to offer you the challenges they want to offer you. It is what it is.

    Is the action within the story so tough that it is keeping you from seeing the entire story and you really really really want to see it? Well, then there may be quite a few options you might want to consider: practise/face the challenge/achieve victory, restart in an easier difficulty setting, ask a friend what's up next, search for hints, read a guide book, enter cheat mode, ... numerous options, really.

    And in RE5's case, if it resembles RE4 somewhat, it will have an adaptive difficulty level, numerous continue points, each chapter neatly broken up into several scenes. I do think most players will get to see all of RE5's story without too much trouble."

    Where did I say that 'for the story's sake, the game should be easy to finish without any frustration whatsoever'? I didn't say anything of the kind. You are making it sound is if I want all the enemies to drop over in one shot, for the game to be pissing out ammo at every opportunity, and for the enemies never to attack Sheva! After all our exchanges, I had at least hoped that you didn't see me as somebody who wants everything done for me. I am admittedly, not the best player in the world, and I do play a lot of easy, casual crap, but I've also played some harder games too. Have a look at my profile. If it is now me who has got the wrong end of the stick, then of course, I'm sorry.

    You are right of course, that the gameplay should take precedence over the storyline, but I wouldn't say the storyline is quite a distant second, I would say it is a close second, for I've played a few games that I've really enjoyed the story on. Looking at my profile, you may disagree, but that's a totally different argument, and again, I don't want to get drawn into that one because these posts are massive already!

    As you rightly say, knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the A.I. character are important, but that's not the same thing as knowing how the thing has been programmed. I'm sure it helps a lot, as you have pointed out to me to understand all those little nuances, but I think it should be possible to manage an A.I. character just by knowing the kind of character he or she is - whether you learn this during the game or are told in a bio. So as I said, consulting the bio WAS a good idea, though admittedly, reading it back, the way I said it at the time did come across a being a bit arsey.

    "However, I'm not a big fan of Capcom explicitly - I'm a big fan of Shinji Mikami, and he happened to make some games for Capcom."

    I'm sorry, I just thought that given all the stuff you know about the Resident Evil series, and also how much effort you put into Dead Rising and also what you said about Devil May Cry's controls a few posts back, you clearly have a lot of respect for Capcom's games, and quite rightly, they often seem to be of really high quality. But yes, I probably should have said a fan of their games, rather than a fan of them themselves. But nevertheless, I stand corrected, for as you said, it was mainly just Shinji Mikami you were really talking about - and the Resident Evil series. I hope you didn't think I was taking the piss.

    "However, as far as designing games is concerned, having "must be completed easily by everyone" is not the absolute alpha and omega of of game design which MUST be in everything. Other games are possible without it. Don't like that? Then there are plenty of other games to choose from and waste your time on."

    Well, I suppose that's what difficulty-settings are for.

    "Where did I say "shallow" or "intellectually challenged"? All I do is calling out the Controlz Whining and leave it at that."

    Nowhere, but then I wasn't talking about the controls, which I'd be more than happy to finish talking about if you like - since we are actually in agreement about this particular topic. I was just trying to say that not wanting to have to understand the way the A.I. is programmed doesn't mean that a player is stupid or lazy. As I said, understanding the A.I. should be done by understanding the character, not the programming (though again, as I said before, I don't deny that for those who want to put the extra effort in, understanding the actual programming is bound to help.)

    Either way, it was not my intention to put words into your, mouth. I'm sorry.

    "The results are clear with every AI out there - your point being?"

    That in my opinion, they were less clear with Sheva. But once, again, this is based solely on my experiences with the demo.

    "Not that often? Honestly? Out of curiosity, please enlighten me about these frequent occurences of Sheva's AI failure (and with that, I mean occurrences which appear in the majority of the games you have played in the demo - real patterns of fail). Personally, the only bad recurring thing I've seen her do in the demo is not immediately picking up the items I wanted her to pick up because she was distracted by enemies."

    When we are alone, she is great, and she's okay with a few enemies, but when there's a big crowd, when you need her the most, that's when she most often screwed things up for me. Taking ammo before I can get close enough, standing close to oil-drums when surely she can see I'm aiming at one, standing too close to the man with the chainsaw, not running away - even when the odds are clearly against her. Things like this often happned to me, seemingly regardless of the commands I gave her. I say 'seemingly', because there may well be reasons within her A.I. programing as to why she does them, but to me they often just don't make sense.

    All I'm asking for is a bit of reasoning (perhaps relating to her character) as to why these things are happening, and I mean reasons other than 'that bit of programming kicked in because this or that and that other bit of programming did or didn't do this, that or the other'. Now, if there is something in her bio or something we find out during the game whereby we learn that she has a tendancy to panic in crowd situations - or something of that sort, then that would at least be an explanation as to why she seems a bit unpredicable. I will admit however, that your theory that perhaps she has never been in a genuine situation with real B.O.W. before is quite a plausible on. Will this be something that is used during the game? I suppose we'll have to play the full game to find out.

    At the end of the day, I don't think we're ever going to see eye-to-eye on this one - and I for one am getting tired of actually writing the posts - it takes me aaages! :-() I do see where you are coming from though - really I do. I just don't agree with it. So I suppose that's all I can say on the matter. I may well still buy Resident Evil 5, but at this exact point, I'm still not sure. Perhaps when you buy the full game you can let me know what it's really like?

    "That "instant player control gratification" is key in game design."

    In some kinds of game I think that is a good, thing, but it would be very bad if this became the overriding concern of the majority of developers.

    "I brought it up because it was also about imagery which had the potential to enrage important groups of people (and it did). However, there the motivation was based on religion, which is different from the situation here - the basis of religion is considered holy by its believers, whereas the imagery in RE5 may incite groups of people who interpret it with respect to events from man's cruel past. Something holy is considered universally true and unshakable by its believers, events from man's cruel past can be remembered and processed in such a way that they'll never happen again and the parties involved may eventually trust eachother again.

    Did that make any sense?"

    Perfect sense, thank you. I understand what you meant in your last post now.

    "Only a little more than us. He saw more geometry, more music, more enemies, more of the plot. As far as I can "read" the article, he didn't see substantially more of the workings of the game - only one instance of it."

    Well, I don't suppose we'll know how much he really saw until we get to experience the same areas.

    "And the eagerness to try things in more than one way is tied to being a fan of the Resident Evil series, how? I try things in more than one way in ANY game I play (and no, I do not play Resident Evil only). I'm always looking for the depth behind games, and original approaches to them."

    I had already assumed you didn't just play Resident Evil. I was really connecting that eagerness to experiment with the amount of knawledge you have displayed about the series. I wasn't trying to offend you or suggest that being a fan in some way invalidates your arguments. It really was just an observation.

    "Well, I believe my criticism to be a little more universal than just Resident Evil. I believe that what I said about Controlz Whining applies to every single game out there. But yeah, I think I know a fair bit about Resident Evil, so that's why I have some confidence in my statements here and, well, state them. Plus, I've seen people Controlz Whining about Resident Evil since the very first game for years on end, including reviewers, for basically inane reasons. And at some point, the fuse gets short."

    Have you ever played Alone in the Dark (the recent one)? I haven't got around to looking at you profile on here yet. I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on that one (not here though, obviously).

    "Yes, an abstract shop screen is a much more realistic choice. The reason I like the Merchant is because that one added a genuine sense of cheesy humour into the game. I like cheese. Oh well, can't win them all."

    Perhaps the shop screen was just for demo perposes, stranger.

    "Yes. Personally, I'm thinking about beating the Infinity Mode world record. I also did a little experimenting to see how many Achievements you can unlock in a single 72 hours/Overtime playthrough starting from level 1 (about 44 I reckon). Don't be afraid of unlocking the Laser Sword. All it takes is 5 days, and there's enough food in Willamette mall to last you exactly 7 days and 7 hours - no need to fight survivors or psychopaths. Of course, if it's Red Rings of Death you fear..."

    Yeah, but it's knowing where to look for all the food. Is there enough food to last without having to read any of the books? I should (touch wood) be okay in terms of the RROD, I recently got a new Xbox 360 so hopefully I should be good. Ironically, my old one just became tempremental, it never actually died - despite having had the RROD twice before and recovered from it without needing repairs.
    Edited by 1 at 08/02/09 @ 15:39

  • lowerclassbrats #299 3 years ago

    Life sucks when people actively look for reasons to get butt hurt. I didn't hear any crying when we were slaughtering zombie Spaniards by the ton in RE4. I suppose traversing through life righteously indignant gives the mediocre mind a sense of purpose.

    Oddly enough it is the moronic white who feels the need to defend the "defenseless" minority. There is no larger a culprit to setting back race relations than the well meaning ultra p.c. self hating white. The game takes place in Africa you dunderheads. Capcom has even placated these simpletons by throwing in some caucasians and an unidentifiable slightly darker than white but notably lighter than black race of zombie.

  • guernican #300 3 years ago

    @ Burzum

    On the contrary, the epithet "little man" seems to suit your nit-picking yet morally oblivious demeanour down to an absolute T.

  • Landmaster #301 3 years ago

    I thought the demo was great and can't wait to play the completed game.

    Considering you can play it with the exact control method as Resident Evil 4, i don't see the problem. Complaints were minimal back then, i can't understand the hate now :/

    Oh when Sheva recomended you should get either side of the boss, did you press 'B' to let her know you agree it's a good idea?

    And I think it seemed as if the article was trying to re-brew up the racist debate...

  • mukki #302 3 years ago

    Mnn canceling pre order and getting the orange box :)

  • mukki #303 3 years ago

    Mnn canceling pre order and getting the orange box :)

  • TheComedian #304 3 years ago

    'Actually I doubt it, I can't believe the mainstream press is as fickle as you lot. I mean are you suggesting that a white woman's skull being splattered is perfectly acceptable? Are we only allowed to splatter the skulls of our own race? Or if Chris were black, would he have discretion to splatter the skulls of anybody he chooses? Ludicrous.'

    LMFAO

    Read the Daily Mail my friend.


    If you dare :p

  • captain-future #305 3 years ago

    please mark one

    only thing you can say about this ridiculous "racist" accusations.

  • BrainSparing #306 3 years ago

    I look forward to playing this game as I have enjoyed playing the others before it. It's a video game! My opinion is that this whole racism issue is to much. Reality is, there are millions of people of all kinds of race or ethnicity. I can believe that somewhere a group (2 or more) of men (whether African or not) at one day or another could have been kicking a bag with something in it. GTA has a new game with White bikers and I believe those bikers are against black bikers, Asian gangs and white cops in the game? I don't know I haven't play it. WHO CARES WHAT COLOR OR RACE! It's an advance video game age. Years ago we only had Donkey Kong. Game developers every year wanted to make the graphics and art as real as possible and they have. SO, if the setting is in Africa, Africans need to be there. I'm a video game palyer. I buy and support a game for the game play, story, graphics etc. I don't think about, "why does it have to be a Black/African or Asian or Austrailian guy?" or "Why not an Asian guy instead of Italian Mobster?" WHO DOES THAT? Maybe the real racist out there! Btw, I'm Filipino and a my home country was envaded by the so-called "the white man", so we (Filipinos) also experienced oppression etc. Not anymore though, we welcome tourism in our country now. I'm sure Africa welcomes tourism as well. Meaning if Africans or Filipinos were racist they wouldn't welcome other race to tour their country, because only real racist view whatever in color or race. It's a Video Game!! Play or not Play! Peace!

  • ai3di #307 3 years ago

    African Americans are truly the biggest racists. They have no problem calling any other race sterotypical names, ridiculing everyone elses beliefs, lifestyles, and sterotypes in everyway. So many African American comedians make carrers out of making fun of every other race, especcially caucasions. I have never met another race that hates being called a certain name, turn around and use it so much within their own race. Most other races try to make those words disappear. I have seen many games and movies where the characters are dumb, uneducated caucasions, and not heard an outcry, But the second it is flipped, watch out! Are Africans and African Americans being portrayed faulsely? Not according to the news I hear about Africa and African Americans. I can find many articles of Africans genociding entire populations in order to bring in a new government. I also have seen the numbers by race of jail populations and highschool droppouts. I understand that in order to improve such things it is better to not be portrayed in such a way, but you are really the bigger racist when you only cry out when it is your race that is being portrayed in such a way. Seriously, change the game around completely. Make it two African Americans gunning down an entire population of caucasions that are portrayed exactly like the Africans are being portrayed in the new RE game, and I bet you won't hear any kind of racism remarks come out then.

  • ai3di #308 3 years ago

    When I meet a new person, I don't judge them on their color, religion, ethnic background, education level, income level, or anything at all. I only start to judge a person on their actions. You are either a good person or a dumb s**t bad person who I would not want to remain in contact with. All Caucasions are getting even better at being this way like me. It's too bad that all the other races do not follow suit, they still see a difference. Which is it? Do you want to be equal and treated the same, or do you want to be recognized as a minority and deserve certain benifits for being so?

  • jorauk #309 3 years ago

    "African Americans are truly the biggest racists."
    "When I meet a new person, I don't judge them on their color, religion, ethnic background, education level, income level, or anything at all."
    Hmm.

    Amazing how many people in this thread have adopted the "he who smelt it dealt it" theory of racism.

    Yes, guys, sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending that racism went shrieking into the the darkness when segregation/apartheid/whatever ended is SO much more enlightened than drawing attention to possible problematic depictions of race in popular culture.
    Edited by 2 at 02/04/09 @ 01:23

  • jorauk #310 3 years ago

    I mean, I wouldn't have thought most people were so dense and had such a childish understanding of racism that they think only the most blatant and purposefully oppressive things count as racist, but looking at this thread apparently that's the case.

  • jorauk #311 3 years ago

    Hmm, yes, playing into old stereotypes of Africa as the "dark continent" is not racist at all, that's just accurate portrayal of setting! What? Why of course I've never been to Africa, why do you ask?

  • Feanor #312 6 months ago

    "All it will take is for one mainstream media outlet to show the heroic Chris Redfield stamping on the face of a black woman, splattering her skull, and the controversy over Manhunt 2 will seem quaint by comparison."

    What a surprise, this never happened.