Resident Evil 5 Comments by Dan Whitehead

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.

"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.

^ 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.

Im looking forward to the game, enjoyed RE4

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.

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.

As are your craven excuses for racism

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.

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.

@ 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.

"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.

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. :)

RESIDENT EVIL FIIIIIIIIIVE!

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

"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?

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! :-)

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.

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?

/yawn

bedtime

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.

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.

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 :)

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 :)

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.

@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.

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.

@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.

>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.

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.

All non-racist people are racist against racists.

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

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.

+1

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.

@ 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 ?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

'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.

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.

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.

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?

@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.

@DanWhitehead

"there is imagery in the game that - I believe - is absolutely drawn from racist stereotypes that have long since been excised from other media."

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

@ 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:
http://www.archive.org/details/dw_griffi...

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.

@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*

@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.

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.