Two weeks ago, a storm hit this blog.
We interviewed Newsweek reporter N’Gai Croal for a series about black professionals involved with video games, and we selected his comments on the “Resident Evil 5″ trailer for a standalone post.
We knew the post would be contentious. Last summer I had written about my own uneasiness with the trailer and the response to that piece had been spirited.
Croal talked to our writer Tracey John about racial imagery in the trailer. He made a cogent if not airtight argument. The line that drew the most reaction was the one that suggested his gut reflex to first seeing the trailer: “Wow, clearly no one black worked on this game.”
In response, some agreed. Some called him a racist. Some said he was ignoring the legitimate conventions of zombie horror. One person encouraged him to shut up, go to Africa and start overthrowing dictators. And some people produced an old chestnut: “It’s just a video game.”
“It’s just a video game.”
Really?
I don’t think that’s a valid response in 2008.
Not if you care about video games.
It implies that games have no cultural impact, that they are the entertainment field’s Las Vegas: What goes on in games stays in games. It’s a defense used to explain that “Manhunt” won’t turn people into murderers any more than “Pirates of The Caribbean” will turn anyone into a pirate.
And it’s a point to basically say, look, it doesn’t matter if you’re shooting virtual poor Africans who were turned into zombies. You shot virtual poor Spaniards in “Resident Evil 4.” You shot police in “Grand Theft Auto.” You shot Dr. Wily in “Mega Man.” You shoot characters in games. That’s just what you do. It doesn’t mean you have any hate in real life to any of those parties. Don’t sweat it. Have fun. Play to win.
This kind of reaction suggests that it doesn’t at all matter what characters in games look like, what they might represent. As long as the good guys are clearly the good guys and the bad guys are frothing at the mouth, then the lines are clear, skin tones and historical precedents be damned. There’s no more significance in the color of a zombie than there is in the color of a chess piece. Context means nothing.
But then I wrote a piece about playing as a woman in “Grand Theft Auto,” and suggested that it would be really interesting if Rockstar Games made a whole “GTA” that starred a woman.
It shouldn’t matter, right? Not anymore than it matters what color Chris Redfield and his zombie enemies are. Except… my post was shouted down. I was accused of spoiling things, of meddling. I was accused of feminism.
I was told that a woman lead in “GTA” would ruin things.
I saw a double-standard these past two weeks, a double-standard between people who said race is a non-factor in games and people who said gender is — between people who downplayed context and people who could only see context.
And I’m calling that out.
(If anyone out there wants to write a doctoral thesis about the difference between race and gender in video games, this is your cue.)
I can’t sift apart the reactions to the “RE5″ and “GTA” posts. I don’t think there’s one right take on either issue. The “RE5″ trailer may indeed be playing off of cultural fears of black people. It might also just be playing off fears of zombies. “GTA” might be awesome with a female protagonist. Or Rockstar Games might be incapable of writing a compelling female lead.
Who knows?
What I do know is that the response to the two posts kills any chance of my taking the “It’s just a game” line seriously ever again.
Clearly, to gamers, it does matter who you play as, who you shoot, who you have hot coffee with — at least some of the time.
This is what’s worth discussing: Who do we want to be or not be in games? How abstract or how real do we want these virtual worlds to be? What kind of emotional impact do we want them to have?
Games aren’t just games. Character-driven games (i.e. not “Tetris“) are roles that we adopt, as if we were actors. They are fantasies waiting to be fulfilled. As I said in my own “RE5″ post, a game trailer is an advertisement for a fantasy. It asks: Do you want to be this character and do these things? If so, buy our game and you’ll feel like you’re the one responsible for what you see here.
Let’s think about games as fantasies, then. And ask some of this again. For instance: Who do I want to shoot in a video game? That’s a real question.
To some people it’s a real question with an easy answer: Anyone. Video games are pure abstraction, such people would say. None of it’s real, so it’s all fine. These people respond to an essay like this by throwing their hands in the air and saying, “Get over it. It’s just a game.” And sometimes they’re right. Video games can be considered purely in the abstract — as just games — as vehicles for competition not dissimilar from freeze tag, football or a match of Battleship. Most people aren’t planning on sinking real battleships any more than they are preparing to use their “Ninja Gaiden” skills on the real enemy ninjas next door.
On the other hand, some people do take games literally. Consider the person who wonders how a “Grand Theft Auto” gamer can enjoy shooting virtual policemen. They might see such an act as a predictor of dangerous real-life behavior or as an exhibition of poor values. To such people, there can be no joy in killing a virtual police officer because it represents the killing of a real police officer.
I believe most gamers maintain a position in between these two extremes, that we adopt our roles with a mix of those sentiments and no one who plays games truly buys the “It’s just a game” argument in its pure form
Any of us who has razed a city in “Sim City” or killed retreating Covenant in “Halo” can claim the abstraction defense. We can say we were just playing and would never behave that way real life. Don’t take us literally. But always and in every game? Take “BioShock,” and the moment you might choose not to snuff out a character, just because she looks like a little girl. Or take the moment when you keep a unit in a real-time-strategy game alive out of sentimentality, or when you deviate from the renegade course in “Mass Effect” this one time because a charming conversationalist compels you to be nice. We often celebrate these moments when something in our games other than the rules matters.
My theory is that gamers don’t want their games to just be games. We relish the moments that our avatars and our enemies mean more than a pawn, a rook or a knight might.
Let’s not be afraid to break down what this means.
I think some gamers fear for the medium. They fear censorship. They fear another “Mass Effect” SeXbox fiasco. They certainly don’t want to see what non-gamers in the media would think of an honest discussion of running over bystanders in “Saints Row.” But to fear such things — and to therefore be unwilling to talk about what it means to play as the characters we do — would be to allow those who don’t care about video games to lead the discussion about them.
What does it mean if and when we take pleasure in our games from shooting a cop or a zombie that used to be a poor African or a Spanish farmer? What do the roles we play say about us — about what we find fun, what we take literally and what we don’t?
How much do we want games to connect with our desires and hopes and hates and emotions? How much do we want our games to just feel like games or feel like something more?
From “GTA” to “Half-Life” to “Call Of Duty” to “RE4″ and “RE5″ — What roles do we, as individuals, want to take? And what do we want to avoid?
Let’s talk, finally, about what that means.
April 21st, 2008 at 5:54 pm
I do agree that gamers want games with more depth and choices, and not just mindlessly killing anything that moves. However, there is nothing wrong with killing everything. Sometimes it is just fun to be whoever, doing whatever, whoever were doing it to. And yes it makes sense to look at games like the new resident evil and question them, but there should not be anything that we should want to avoid.
April 21st, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Well, context is everything — Killing those African Zombies should be uncomfortable, that is, if you are regular human being. But that discomfort can be in two very different forms.
One is discomfort purely based on that fact that you are killing hordes of people, all of the same ethnicity — it’s your own moral discomfort and distaste. The second is context provided by the game itself; if RE5 were a political commentary on the Caucasian role in Africa it would take on a whole new meaning.
But, seeing as Resident Evil narratives have always been laughably simplistic in their depth, I’ll most likely be cringing all the way through this one.
April 21st, 2008 at 6:29 pm
@Erik
Take it a step further. If context is meaningful, then what does it mean when we shoot cops in “GTA” and enjoy it? My gut tells me that’s different, but I haven’t been able to figure out why — nor if any “difference” is legit.
April 21st, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Great post, Stephen. I think it hits one of the points N’Gai was trying to make in his interview with Tracey, which is that games, like any other medium, resonate on multiple levels.
It’s annoying that folks can laud the topicality of COD4 or the relative philosophical depth of Bioshock would choose to be selective about talking about who they play as or play against (in terms of NPCs). Hopefully, there will be some discussion about that here.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:50 pm
I’ve got to much buzzing in my head so I’ve got to go stream of conciousness for this one:
A storm? The generated it on purpose…..hardly a storm. More like they blew up their own levys.
N’gai thinks that all black people watch all media like hawks looking for racially charged material….of course since that what N’gai did maybe they in fact do…I maybe racist now.
How pretentious to transpose that the year 2008 has any cultural significance. Our land is a bit to diverse to truly define it by a year. I’m sure there are parts of our world that are stuck in the 1800’s. I hear that Russia loves the 80’s….no I heard that.
Relating racism and sexism is silly. There’s not a real difference between me and a black guy. There is a big difference between me and a woman(what with me not being a woman). Our brain chemistry is skewed enough that I rarely find playing a well thought out female character to be enjoyable. I just don’t relate. Its not that I don’t appreciate female characters its just that if I am expected to take on the role of that character I expect it to act like me. I don’t mind playing as a female skinned sprite(ala wow) when I control their every action. But if a screen shot takes over and behaves in a way counter to my intention that’s a jarring removal from the experience. I mean if in the middle of the next Tomb Raider game Lara stops to “do girlie things” I’m not really cool with that.
That said I have no idea how to satisfy my expectations and a womans at the same time…..I think I may have just described the whole of male lead societal history.(insert sexual innuendo here)
The reference to SimCity leads me to believe that in fact most people given the recreastion of an in-game scenario would in fact behave similarly. People shoot at retreating troops. if you had the control of SimCity in reality I’m afraid that power would corrupt, as power inevitably does. Most people are Nero and not Augustus.
“How much do we want games to connect with our desires and hopes and hates and emotions? How much do we want our games to just feel like games or feel like something more?”While I’m playing I want to feel very connected, as much as any other medium. However, to say that a game should ever invite me to describe it as more then a game seems….unhealthy. Maybe that’s years of brainwashing talking but when I think about people that are passionate enough to talk about games as more then entertainment and a hobby, its when i start to worry about them.
Now if the creator of a game spoke with such passion I would be invigorated. To see a director, actor, or writer gush over their latest movie also encourages me and adds meaning to the product their offering. But if a fan feels as deeply after seeing, if watching/playing a movie/game is as life altering as making it to you….I worry about you(me).
It was a game…..don’t take it to seriously.
When I write it out like that….I don’t like the look of it either….
April 21st, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Grand Theft Auto has always had a very comic, tongue-in-cheek air. Killing a cop carries no emotional weight because there is simply nothing to match the action to.
Now, who hasn’t seen a World Vision ad on a Sunday afternoon that sends you a barrage of imagery of starving Africans? It becomes an ingrained image of sympathy — whether you like it or not. So when I watch (and ultimately play) RE5, the entire premise has that same connotation; it’s imagery of an uncomfortable place, a people who have very little. So on top of that, do I seriously have to go shoot them in the face and play as a white character to boot?
In GTA, killing a cop has little to no sympathetic connotation — within or without the game. First, looking outside of the game, a cop is an image of authority and power. And who doesn’t like to rebel against the power, even just a little bit? Now, if GTA provided a little bit of soul to each cop things would be very different. If a cop talked with his partner about his family and how much they meant to him before I walked up, pulled my pistol to his head and pulled the trigger it takes on a whole new meaning — then I might think twice before doing it. But, in GTA I have nothing weigh my action against (so far). I guess the goofy look and feel, in addition to zero sympathy put forth within the game completely remove any self imposed ideas of who a man in uniform really is and what it means to kill him. Who knows? Maybe things will get a little more uncomfortable in the strikingly realistic metropolis that is GTA IV.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:15 pm
The ‘just a game’ angle has a lot of merit, though. All of the games you mentioned, they’re trying to be GAMES above all, they’re trying to be fun. CoD4 badguys are, despite their Arab/Soviet trappings, just lead receptacles. The game’s just trying to show you something impressive as it drags you along. It’s like reading meaning in Transformers: The Movie.
Bioshock does try and convey some sort of message, but any implicit morality is lost to pure mechanical choices. Do I kill this little sister and reap the immediate rewards or tough it out and get huge rewards later on?
And GTA is a game with practically no consequences. Your worst massacre will be forgotten the moment you get out of the hospital, and in GTA:SA you don’t even lose your weapons, one of the few downsides to being busted/knocked out.
All else, in those games, is player-inserted narrative. Me, my character is always a demigod, which gives me an excuse to break out the cheat codes.
It’s not like we’re talking about Pathologic or even Marriage/Passage/etc.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Its just a game.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Seriously now, I don’t see any issue. Personally, I can play Resi 5, enjoy shooting down all the black natives and be safe in the knowledge that I’m not a racist, I have plenty of friends of other races, and I would never consider doing something like this in real life. The same goes for shooting police in GTA. I would never shoot a policeman in real life, and what I’m doing inside the game is only relevant inside the game.
Overall, what I’m doing in a game has no revelance or bearing to me in real life. I play games for fun, and if part of that game involves me shooting police or black natives, then it doesn’t affect me at all.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:32 pm
@Deano
I hear you. But to play devil’s advocate, what if the characters you had to shoot in a game looked like a beloved member of your family?
Surely there must be some themes a developer could apply that would keep a game from being abstract.
And my view is that if we agree that that is possible, then it’s worth exploring not just where that line is, but how close we as gamers want developers to get to it. Do we want games to ever make us feel sympathy, guilt or any other emotion that can’t ever serve a gameplay function?
I’m thinking of the cuteness of some of the pinatas in Viva Pinata, for some reason. And thinking about how and why I felt guilty about killing some of them, even though I knew, mathematically, that that was what needed to be done to make my garden flourish.
April 21st, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Good point. I would be reluctant to shoot characters that looked like family members - I think anyone would.
For me, no game has yet got to the point where I feel guilty about a decision I’ve made. That’s not to say it won’t happen in the future - with the leaps and bounds made in the gaming world culturally and technically over the last few years, I wouldn’t be surprised if a game was eventually released that does make you feel guilty, among other feelings. It’s just part of the evolution of videogames, and for me, it hasn’t yet evolved to that point where I get so emotionally invested.
I would love for games in the future to challenge the way I think and act, inside the game and out. Making gamers feel guilty about doing something would be considered as a leap forward, by me at least.
It’s all subjective. Some people have played games and have become emotionally invested in them to the point of feeling guilty; you with Viva Pinata. That just hasn’t happened for me yet, which is why I still go into every game having fun despite what I’m doing.
I guess what I’m trying to say through all this is, I don’t think you’re wrong. Looking at my first reply, it seems like I’m taking the stance of ‘you’re wrong, games don’t make me feel guilty.’ The bottom line is, games don’t make me feel guilty YET, and I expect that to change.
April 21st, 2008 at 10:18 pm
I have a feeling that, until people can stop saying ‘I’ve got a black friend!’ or ‘I’ve got a gay friend!’, the race and sexuality issues are going to continue to be issues, because we make them issues.
The fact of the matter, in regards to race in games is this - if there is historical and cultural issues between two races, and you portray a pantomime of those issues in a video game, you are asking for scrutiny. Granted, alot of people are deciding to take the ‘moral high road’ of ‘zombies/t-virus know no race!’, which goes to show that the people who are claiming that fall into one of two camps;
a) people who have no idea of the impact of the imagery - ie, non-blacks who have not had the shadow of lynchings and racism haunting them in the past, and somewhat in the present, depending on their social backgrounds
b) black people who aren’t bothered by the historical and cultural nature of the imagery presented, due either to apathy on the subject, or the ability to just ‘live and let live’, and move on towards the future instead of dwelling on the actions of misguided people in the past, and still, somewhat in the present.
Now, the issue of sex and sexuality in games is a marginally parallel affair. The gender of your character you play as in action/shooter titles SHOULDN’T matter, should it? Or is the modern gamer so inured in their own insecurity as a male that they need all of their role models to pack 10″ of blue steel erection right next to their Desert Eagle?
To say that the female protagonist in ANY situation is the ‘weaker’ representation of the genre is a waste; female leads haven’t been frowned upon in other cultural entertainment forms - Ripley from the ‘Alien’ series of films, Jade in ‘Beyond Good and Evil’, Hippolyta Hall in the ‘Sandman’ series of comics - the list goes on.
To pidgeonhole women as sideline characters, an endless stream of Robins to the tough-guy Batman alot of gamers seem to need pulling those analog sticks around is ridiculous.
However, the writing implicit in creating a plausible and acceptable female lead in an action/shooter plot still may be unattainable for some companies. The genre is generally based on testosterone, revenge, and ‘being the man’. In situations like this, some men feel uncomfortable in the role-reversal of women taking charge, that if a woman is the rise up against and bare her fangs, it could only be acceptable in a situation where she is defending her home, her children, or some other maternal instinct gone awry. To move beyond this trope seems too much for some men to be able to accept, and certainly too much for some game writers to be able to script. Add to this the fact that the only other stereotype most men are willing to accept is the oversexed, busty heroin who stretches out the ass of her 3rd-person-ogled pants, and you get the picture - we’ve got a long road ahead.
As much as I would like to see a strong plot based on a female who is not just another archtype of the ‘maternal champion’ or the sexy vamp, I have a feeling it’s going to be a long time coming.
Then again, if games can’t one day get beyond the ’see enemy/shoot it’ rut that they’ve been in, because the only conflict alot of gamers seem willing to accept is the physical type, then is it even WORTH trying? There’s only so many more people/aliens/space marines that need shooting before we may just one day put down the controller and grab a book, and what (videogame) publisher wants that?
April 21st, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Damn good post, Stephen. I’m probably being overdramatic here, but I had this strange crystallizing moment as I read it: we (the gaming community) are finally seeing meaningful mainstream critical discussion of the medium on a near-daily basis, with the unlikeliest of sources — MTV and Newsweek — leading it.
I feel like, at its core, this whole discussion is really about how much and in what ways gamers like to be challenged. I’m guessing that many of the commenters who jumped on N’Gai’s posts within minutes have no qualms about spending tens (or hundreds) of hours to overcome obstacles or master multiplayer modes, yet, when it comes to spending a few minutes digesting a provocative point of view, they immediately shut down.
Which gets to the weird paradox of gaming (I’m pretty sure I’m stealing from/mangling Raph Koster here): the fundamental nature of most game players is to seek out and conquer new challenges… so long as they are safely within reach. If a game’s too challenging, participation plummets.
It leaves me wondering: where does examining one’s emotional proximity to a game fall? And how can designers get gamers, who are saddled with a couple of decades’ worth of institutional knowledge, to feel comfortable addressing the subject?
Whatever the answer is, it’s great that you guys are using mainstream media brands to push these boundaries. Thanks again.
April 21st, 2008 at 11:23 pm
I know this sounds weird but I think South Park did a really good peice on racisum. Anyhow this is how it went- There was a flag showing 3 white men hanging a black man. Cheif (being black) was offended by this and couldnt understand why the boys werent offended. Anyway in the end it turns out Cheif end’s up understanding the reason why the boys werent offender. The reason was that they didnt see 3 white men hanging a black man. all they saw was 3 men hanging another man. Now if people wernt raciest this is exactly what they would see in RE5, 1 person killing other people. It is rediculous how many people say there not racist but still see the colour of a persons skin.
On the topic of why we dont want a female lead role in GTA IV. I think it’s because we are so used to having a guy in that role. I mean would Tomb Raider be the same without Lara Croft. Would we want a male to take her place. I dont think we would.
Anyway as much as these 2 aguments seem similar I dont think they have much in commen at all.
Also this was a great article. It actuly made me stop and think about what you wrote, well done.
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:12 am
Great article. And in fact, when you mention a female protagonist for GTA (an article I must have missed), I immediately wondered how the relationships would act out - particularly when you mention the Hot Coffee mod. How bad would that incident have gone down if it was a female seducer?
There are only two games (outside MMO) that I can think of where as a female character you can choose to bang another character - female or male; Mass Effect and Fallout.
Something tells me that there would be a huge outroar. Would male players even seek to enact a relationship with another male character? Would a male player feel that the female character was a slut? Would there be a greater outrage from parents concerned that their daughters might suddenly get pregnant, like their sons are so influenced to shoot people in high schools?
I believe the RE5 fiasco has simply outlined the ignorance of the vocal internet inhabitants. Often times I’ll see a thread full of the typical responses you’ve outlined and actively decide not to bother entering the conversation.
I definitely care about what I shoot, and honestly, I love games that give me an option between lethal and non-lethal forms of conflict resolutions. Wolfenstein made me hate shooting the dogs. Dogs don’t have a choice about the life they choose. I used to think, “these German shephards were probably beaten and forced to fight,” I used to feel sick shooting them. People have a choice right? I don’t have a problem shooting people who’ve chosen to kill me. So when Metal Gear Solid offered the opportunity to sedate dogs instead, I went out of my way to avoid killing them.
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:17 am
To add to what Rob Miller said, I am one of those who aren’t offended by the RE5 trailer because of the obvious context, which is that there are black people in Africa. If those people become zombies, they’ll be black zombies.
Now I agree that games are fantasy worlds, but those worlds are also often based on reality. If I were to travel to Africa and be surrounded by zombies, should I feel bad about shooting them in the head because their skin is a different color than mine? The objective of the game is to survive, not to mindlessly shoot anything that moves.
Having said that, I understand that many can find the trailer offensive, because of our history: slavery, racism, prejudice, it’s all still taboo, like sex and what not. People like me have a hard time understanding why that is because we were raised to look passed those differences. Unfortunately, that creates a gap between people that are in no way racists and in the end, just want the same thing, for everybody in the world to be equal. Obviously, we don’t live in a perfect world so the subject will always stay a touchy one.
Basically, what I am trying to say is that a lot of people arguing over this are actually on the same side, but with different backgrounds and we should be consulting each other on how to approach this matter.
While reading all the comments I thought about something. A couple of games in the RE series have allowed you to play two different characters. If in this case, Chris was to team up with an African, how would the game be perceived? Would it be an obvious way to make the game politically correct? How about if Capcom ditched the recognizable character from the franchise and simply went for an African or black STARS agent? Would that be seen as a means to get away with it?
Why is it that in a videogame you can kill a horde of zombies but only if they are white? Is it because people think mostly white males play videogames? Is it because they think only white people can afford to buy videogames?
What I realized while writing this is that this subject touches too many layers to simply summarize it. That really does show how much the industry has grown. I’d say we’ve hit puberty, that awkward part of your life you have to go through before making it to the big leagues.
What makes me sad is that mainstream news outlet take a look at subjects like this and merely spit it out for the world to see: “New game where a white man shoots black people, recruiting game for the kkk?”. Then they have some idiot posing as a videogame specialist not even talking about the context, only saying that it’s bad for you and you should go buy a gun at wal-mart so you can protect yourself from crazy people that play videogames…
I’m getting a little off topic here so I’ll stop, and I didn’t even get to gender differences.
April 22nd, 2008 at 5:59 am
Excellent article, and I agree with what has been said so far in other posts, that the fact people are even talking about this in an intelligent manner is a great sign.
Games are diverse, offering many different kinds of emotions and experiences. It’s a shame that games and their impact and meaning aren’t discussed often enough, especially in the mainstream media, because like films, books, TV shows, paintings, each game is created by human beings, each game reflecting it’s creator. And in turn the games reflect those who play them.
Games can and should be thought provoking. Not all games, just like not all films and books are thought provoking, but we should not shy away from discussion like this, and we should certainly acknowledge that opinions differ on these issues, just like with every issue in the world.
A recent thought provoking example in a game for me recently was in Mass Effect, when (POTENTIAL SPOILER) I had the choice of letting a character live or die. She was an innocent tool of an ‘evil’ being. I didn’t want to kill her. But, with Mass Effect having it’s Paragon/Renegade system, I decided that I should balance out my Paragon side by going Renegade in this instance. Purely a game play choice. So I had my Shepard execute this innocent character. And I genuinely felt bad. I made a choice based on ‘game play’, not my own morals and beliefs, and surprisingly I was emotionally affected.(END SPOILERS)
I have no idea what this says about the game or about me, but it certainly made me think.
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:31 am
Stephen,
Video Games, as a medium, always seem to be in some form of controversy or another. It has been blamed for school shootings, and the recent violent actions in Chicago, because it always seems to be the safe bet among politicians and reactionaries. Whenever one of these incidents occurs, there is the voice of reason, whether it is a journalist or a gaming blog that defends video games. Stephen you have done this before.
You are now no different than those politicians or reactionaries. Congratulations. Achievement unlocked.
You are reacting to a video game based on a trailer, with almost no context to the situation. You are filling in the trailers blanks based on your own feelings and insecurities. You are no different than when Jack Thompson loudly declared that Bully is a Columbine simulator.
Judge the game in it’s final form, not by some teaser trailer.
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:52 am
I wonder why people consider it acceptle to kill one race of people in a game, but other races are to be protected from this treatment?
Why is it ok to shoot Middle Eastern people in Call of Duty 4? Why is it ok to shoot Eastern Europeans in in other games?
Why is it that it is only when people of African descent are the object that we suddenly find ourselves offended? I would even propose that it is not even Africans that offend, but only “Black” Africans. If the game were set in Egypt and they were viewed as Egyptians or Libyans, no one would decry this as racist.
I think it is basically a racist remark overall to think that your ethnic origin is always being victimized when they are depicted in anything other than a positive light.
If you want to worry about racism in games, then worry about all races in all games. If you can’t shoot black people, then you can’t shoot yellow, brown, red, white, green or purple people either.
Everything is not about race, and people who want to make it as such, are the biggest racists to me.
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:54 am
I think Cooper Hawkes hit the nail on the head. Video Games are not what they were 20, or even 10 years ago. They are a medium, just like movies, books, and television. There are questionable situations that occur in some films you might watch, or books you read. But you have to take them into context. Is it really that hard to figure out the difference between a character killing zombies or innocent people? What about the “shooting cops” in GTA? Have you never watched a movie or read a book, where the central character had to do some questionable deeds, or had less than perfect morals?
I suppose the next step would be to start writing ridiculous blogs about the thousands of books and movies that are offensive just based on the description on the back cover.
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:04 am
@Cooper
Oh come on. You can’t see a difference between what I’ve written and what Thompson says? What I’m “reacting” to are my ever-evolving thoughts about what’s actually going on when we take on the role of a video game character. You’re suggesting that any discussion about how violence in games relates to the people who play games is giving in to the enemy or something. I disagree. There’s plenty of room for discussion.
@Maj Malfunction
I believe you just cut and pasted your comments from the thread about N”Gai’s RE5 reactions. My post here had to do with a lot of things other than race. As you’re encourage others to do, I also urge you to see past arguments involving race. That’s not strictly what I’m talking about in this entry.
@Sarge
What gives, man? You’re taking the easy way out by saying, hey games are just another medium, let’s not think too much about them.
You and I both play games. We read books. You don’t think we relate to the characters and actions of the main characters in books differently than we do those in games?
That’s what I’m getting at here. I’m not attacking games. I love games. I want to get a conversation going about how players connect with games. I know I react differently to seeing a character in a movie doing something than I do when I make the character in a game I play do the same thing. Sometimes I take things more seriously (for instance, I can sometimes deal with a movie’s depiction of spousal abuse, but I don’t want to beat up virtual women in a GTA). Sometimes I take things less seriously (I’m turned off by murderous “heroes” in movies, but I gleefully kill thousands of characters in games).
I’m trying to sort these things out in a forum where people don’t have to worry that the conversation is immediately going to get turned into a bad cable news debate.
Keep the feedback coming. Please.
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:25 am
Fair enough. But, I never read N`Gai’s thread. So I didn’t cut and paste anything. Just spoke from my feelings. I just feel if it wasn’t for the race sensitivity, this topic would never have arisen.
I think whoever you have to shoot is fine in a game, as long as it fits the context of the story and the game is not being used to promote that one race should be wiping out another race for the sake of just killing someone on the basis of color.
I really don’t think most gamers consider or even think about who or what they are killing in a game. I don’t think people only go around in GTA and look for one particular race to kill. Perhaps there are some of those people out there, but they are in the extreme minority.
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:27 am
i think it’s really unfair, Cooper, to equate Stephen with braindead politicians. he’s simply being a good philosopher, and examining things from outside his own perspective. the extreme gamers arguing with the extremely ignorant is getting nowhere. maybe it’s time to reconsider our approach.
i’m not well versed in new-school shooter games, i just never got into them. i played wolfenstein, doom, and Rise of the Triad, and i got tired of those games. that’s just me. but i never considered them to be the downfall of society, and i dont think current shooter games are, either.
i remember in Evander Holyfield boxing on Sega Genesis, you had the ability to make your character have green skin. aside from the fact that i was 13, and wanted to do anything crazy, i liked that i was able to design my own character, and not be “black” or “white”, or anywhere in between. i was very sensitive to race issues and didn’t want to associate with either side.
why do the game companies not give us these options in the highly controversial games? well, (1) the simplest explanation is that they want to maintain continuity in the game and this includes social continuity. i’ve played GTA games, and if the main character was an albino amputee midget it just wouldnt make sense for people in cut scenes to be talking to him the same way they did the real main character, socially. and people can pick up on this. we have 50,000 years of social conditioning insisting that things must make sense before we move forward. but, (2) there is also probably alot of marketing data that makes them decide how to format a game. unfortunately (nearly all) companies (regardless of product) want to know their product is going to sell, and are afraid to go out on a limb. if EA would make a game with a female lead, and a black lead, and an asian lead, and a latino lead, and all possible combinations, they would potentially have an easier time releasing GTA. but then all games would sell less, and in our capitalistic world it doesnt make sense for them.
i look forward to the day when you can completely modify your character in these games, but that isnt going to make the politicians shut up. i’ll point out that nintendo has been pretty smart, and avoids being the target of these debates, but i hope that isnt because they are against games with realistic violence. it’s only a matter of time before something in some mario game is able to be misconstrued and a parents groups turns their sights to wii. and then nintendo will get thrown into the same pile, and we’ll have to all be in this together. and that will require a little bit of what stephen has done here - reconsidering what point we’re trying to make, and how we can effectively make it.
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:30 am
Stephen,
Thompson was perhaps a poor example, as he is the extreme, but I think my point still stands. You are making a judgment based on your personal feelings; I’m not trying to belittle how you feel, just trying to ask you to bear in mind the context of the situation.
The discussion began over a simple question: Does the RE5 trailer evoke racism?
The answer unfortunately is subjective. Some will say that if you’re a racist, you won’t see, others say if you see it, you are. I’m not talking just as gamers, I also mean in general. We have become reactionary in many respects, where racism is something you have to prove you are not rather than that you are.
I know that because I’m disagreeing with you, there are people reading my comments who now think I am a racist. Am I? How do you know? I’m just a poster on your blog giving my opinion; you have no context to back up whether I am or are not.
Capcom sure won’t respond to any of this right now, why should they? It’s free publicity for the title until such time that they can pull the curtain back and say: “See? Not racism.”. Similar to how Rockstar diffused Jack Thompson by letting him spew his vitriol about Bully before finally showing the game.
Stephen have you seen more of the game than you are able to let on? If you have, then there is context to your statement, and I’ll retract all I said since you have more intimate knowledge outside of the trailer.
But if you haven’t, can you say, with complete certainty, that this game is racist in nature? That its intentions are to give people a visceral thrill over the destruction of another race?
Heck I love a good debate as much as the next man.
Hawkes
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:35 am
Stephen,
One more thing:
With regards to “It’s just a game.” Any bit of entertainment can be taken out of context by the wrong mind and perverted.
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:50 am
@Maj Malfunction
“I really don’t think most gamers consider or even think about who or what they are killing in a game. ”
I hear you, but I do think that, as far as “BioShock” and the Little Sisters go, many gamers DID consider who they were about to kill. And I know some gamers who couldn’t kill the Little Sisters because the Sisters looked like little girls. The fact that some people lauded that added degree of moral complexity has got me wondering if people want more of that.
The counter-argument would be that the Little Sister conundrum (do I kill this little girl or not?) and things of that nature are getting in the way of a game being pure play. I appreciate that perspective too.
@Cooper Hawkes
I haven’t seen any more of “RE5″ than you have. I never said it was racist. In the summer post I link back to above, I had talked about my discomfort emanating from the distinct type of poverty the trailer visually referenced. I was comparing my own feelings and experiences about being in a poor African village with the prospect of playing a game in which I have to kill zombified members of a poor African village.
It’s not an accusation of racism, that I’m talking about. It’s about my personal feelings of, in the case of RE5, whether the game trailer presents a fantasy I want to indulge in. Right now it doesn’t. But I’m familiar enough with the RE series, with Capcom and with the nature of trailers that I know that my discomfort won’t necessarily keep me from enjoying the final product.
I can’t let go of this notion of games as fantasies, which is why I’m encouraging people to drill down on what that means. To play a role in a game, are we embracing a fantasy in a way that we’re not when we watch a role being played in a movie? Neither way of relating is inherently bad. It’s different. And it can lead to some interesting places if we as gamers and if game designers really engage with it and really explore the power of games to say to gamers: we are putting you in this fantasy whether you like it (which is the pitch I hear all the time) or not (which is a pitch I’ve never heard).
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:59 am
@Stephen
Fair enough. I understand your position better now. Apologies for going to the extreme in my comparison.
Honestly I do think games have matured to the point where you can base your purchase decisions based on the fantasies you wish to fulfill.
My gaming decisions depend on fun. If a game looks fun to play, I’ll play it. If by some miracle that fun game play includes a deep story with moral quality decisions, then that’s just a bonus.
But in the end, even though I hesitated the first time when faced with the decision to harvest or save the Little Sister, I choose harvest, because I knew it wasn’t real, and look a “Choose your own adventure” novel, I was curious where it would go with that choice.
Thanks Stephen! Keep up the awesome work!
Hawkes
April 22nd, 2008 at 9:59 am
Quote: Evilbaby
“While I’m playing I want to feel very connected, as much as any other medium. However, to say that a game should ever invite me to describe it as more then a game seems….unhealthy. Maybe that’s years of brainwashing talking but when I think about people that are passionate enough to talk about games as more then entertainment and a hobby, its when i start to worry about them.
Now if the creator of a game spoke with such passion I would be invigorated. To see a director, actor, or writer gush over their latest movie also encourages me and adds meaning to the product their offering. But if a fan feels as deeply after seeing, if watching/playing a movie/game is as life altering as making it to you….I worry about you(me).
It was a game…..don’t take it to seriously.”
I quoted this because it’s a well-stated reason why we can and should take games for exactly what they are– just games to be enjoyed within their own vacuum away from reality. Why do people, even Totilo, feel the need to make this into some kind of statement about the real world?
I mean what you sir, and N’Gai, and FOX News, and others suggest we do here, is basically to blame inanimate-yet-artistic things like The Catcher in the Rye, or John Lennon’s own song lyrics for the actions of Mark David Chapman’s own sick mind (MDC was found guilty in a court of law and sentenced to life, btw– the book and songs however remain at large).
Or hey, let’s blame the Columbine/VA Tech tragedies on Counter Strike’s ‘imagery’, and not blame the men themselves for their own flaws.
BTW, the guns didn’t kill people by themselves.
Here’s a thought: let’s blame real RACISTS for REAL RACIST BEHAVIOR, and not some video game for a faint, questionable impression of it. What really are you implying will happen if this game gets released with all the ‘troubling’ imagery it contains? Are you suggesting that art needs to be put on a leash to avoid uncomfortable historical facts? The Black Codes/Jim Crow Laws are a shameful part of history, no matter how much today’s society wants to tuck it away and hide it in a taped-up box in the locked closet. The constant whining MTV Multiplayer’s doing about this non-issue leads me to believe that you, Totilo, and N’Gai are part of the portion of the American society that would rather live in a world that doesn’t even acknowledge mistakes of the past. We have Black history month every February for a reason, gents, but making a stink about ‘troubling imagery’ to me (a Black gamer– if you couldn’t tell by my handle) is not only anti-American, it’s anti-artistic expression.
I just like to point out that for all the negativity you try to continually rustle up against RE in these articles (make no mistake– your exploiting the ‘controversy’ IS a negative blow to RE’s franchise despite being hidden under the mask of “opening a dialogue”) with this flimsy “GTA would never have a female lead” argument, the Resident Evil series has to date used female leads for 5 different titles:
Jill Valentine (RE1, RE3)
Rebecca Chambers (RE Zero)
Claire Redfield (RE2, RE: Code Veronica)
But by all means, lets attack Japan for the clearly unintentional racism that American society seems to want to graft onto everything nowadays. Oh, and correct me if I’m wrong, but you ARE arguing that art itself should be censored, despite trying to assure readers of the opposite. What is this, Fahrenheit 451?!
To be clearer on this final point– agree or disagree with this hypothetical. You (Stephen Totilo) would probably boycott or even call for a ban of a game promoting the KKK’s beliefs and views (even in jest, or as a side-story to the main action), despite the fact that several highly-praised movies (O Brother Where Art Thou, for instance) deal with exactly that. But ‘the imagery’ is troubling if it’s in a game setting vs. a film setting? Talk about ‘double-standards’…
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:28 am
@TeeCakes
I’ll take up your challenge: I’m not calling for a ban on RE5 and have no interest in calling for a ban on any game.
I have a challenge for you: quote back to me all of the places in my post in which I said art should be censored and any places where I said games cause real life violence.
“The constant whining MTV Multiplayer’s doing about this non-issue leads me to believe that you, Totilo, and N’Gai are part of the portion of the American society that would rather live in a world that doesn’t even acknowledge mistakes of the past.”
I’m the part of American society that wants to have real discussions about games without engaging in scare tactics or being defensive the moment someone suggests we talk about what it means to kill a Space Invader, a Little Sister, a zombie, a Viva Pinata or a virtual cop — all of which have the potential to feel the same or to feel very different. This part of society, as you’ve noticed by watching a lot of mainstream games news coverage, is small. Join me. Let’s add to our numbers.
I’m not against games. Re-read what I wrote. I’m on your side.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:30 am
One more thing, this one’s more directed at the quote from N’Gai you gave:
“Wow, clearly no one black worked on this game.”
That quote, to me, makes it seem like Mr. Croal has already made up his mind about the game being racist. He also is attempting to speak for Blacks everywhere (meaning me) in saying that we all have a problem with the imagery. Please tell him to stop making blanket, ignorant statements like this in public.
I, for one, actually believe that the authentic African locales wouldn’t have been possible without a Black person’s input at Capcom, so not only is he ass-u-me-ing that Blacks everywhere think as fallaciously as him, but he’s also passing an outright lie off as the true (from a videogame journalist, this is pretty irresponsible of him).
I ask him now to retract the statement and apologize to Capcom, and Blacks everywhere, if he has a shred of integrity.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:32 am
I think the Little Sisters in Bioshock were a unique (and very well done) exception. I could not bring myself to kill them. Others did with no problem.
I think the Little Sister worked so well because it touched on a social taboo for us. I don’t think anyone but a severely deranged individual wants to hurt a child or see one being hurt.
By the same token, I don’t think anyone wants to see games depicting *$%$ either. I think there are places that games should never go, and that most of us would never want them to go.
I think some games should be made for pure play. I think others should be made as an interactive story. There are enough gamers out there, that there is something for all of us.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:04 am
@ Stephen
“As I said in my own “RE5 post, a game trailer is an advertisement for a fantasy. It asks: Do you want to be this character and do these things? If so, buy our game and you’ll feel like you’re the one responsible for what you see here.”
So when you read a first-person narrative, your argument would be that the reader assumes the personality of the identity depicted in the work of fiction? Again, this is the same as denouncing ‘The Catcher in the Rye’ for warping kids’ minds with what can be seen (with that argument) as promoting unsafe, illegal, and at times mentally-questionable behavior. Opening a dialogue about gaming is fine, but creating a false reality of what games are meant to represent to gamers based upon one person’s sole perspective on the matter is counter-productive to a positive outcome.
Nobody would disagree here that what FOX News did regarding the Mass Effect “SeXbox” scandal was hurtful to the industry, and unfair on many levels. It’s my belief that you’re engaging in the same type of fear mongering (albeit with the best intentions in mind) by attempting to say in so many words that games should be held accountable for the emotional reaction they trigger in any given gamer. They shouldn’t– a gamer will bring her/his own experiences to the table, and take away from the game whatever they choose to, just like any piece of fiction/art.
“What does it mean if and when we take pleasure in our games from shooting a cop or a zombie that used to be a poor African or a Spanish farmer? What do the roles we play say about us — about what we find fun, what we take literally and what we don’t?”
As I said before, asking these sorts of questions falls into the FOX News mentality– a game cannot and will never be able to control how a person thinks/feels/acts. You, sir, are suggesting the complete opposite here. As an individual, I say that my ability to shoot Germans in a WWII-themed shooter says nothing about my present-day relations with Germans, and the fact that I find enjoyment in the virtual-killing of said Germans simply means that the game is FUN.
“How much do we want games to connect with our desires and hopes and hates and emotions? How much do we want our games to just feel like games or feel like something more?”
I believe I’ve always been linking games to art throughout my responses here, so my comment on this quote should be predictable. Games should attempt to ellicit the entire gamut of emotional responses for every gamer that’s playing, but to say that games have a ‘duty’ to be responsible in their imagery as N’Gai, and you seem to suggest with the RE5-trailer controversy robs gamers (as independently-thinking individuals) the responsibility of making their own decisions. I don’t play a violent game, and get ‘locked’ into my in-game avatar after I push the power button, the dialog you’re attempting to open in some of your points clearly suggests that you believe otherwise.
I’ll continue to disagree with every fiber of my being on that.
“I’m the part of American society that wants to have real discussions about games without engaging in scare tactics or being defensive the moment someone suggests we talk about what it means to kill a Space Invader, a Little Sister, a zombie, a Viva Pinata or a virtual cop — all of which have the potential to feel the same or to feel very different.”
That’s just it, we aren’t “killing” anything! To even suggest that a virtual killing would in any way/shape/form=the actual taking of a life is to seriously (and in my opinion, dangerously) blur the line between reality and fantasy! If you have any friends in the armed forces, please ask them what it is like to see real combat experience. I promise you that they’ll be able to describe the visceral difference between ‘fake’ and ‘real’ killing.
And really, if you aren’t effected by watching slashers like ‘Kill Bill Vol. 1′ where the body count breaks records (which, even in the comic-book style way that deaths are handled) the realism is certainly more than any video game could ever portray. The only difference between video game killings and film/book depictions of similar acts is the medium itself.
I personally have found several books/television shows to be more immersive an experience than anything I ever have, or probably ever will play on a PC/console, especially auto-biographical novels and the local 10 o’clock news. Since I answered your challenge– my new one is, what does it say about a society that seemingly gets off on having the most violent depictions of crime highlighted every night on ABC/NBC/FOX newscasts? What does it say about our society when the popularity of long-running shows like “Law and Order: SVU” basically glorify these horrific crimes?
What does it say about our society that when a video game even encroaches upon these themes, that even the journalists that supposedly support the new media can’t tell the difference when something is acceptable for one (older) medium while being too closely examined/scrutinized in the newer one?
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:58 am
@ Stephen
Well, I did say games are a medium, but I didn’t say we shouldn’t think about them. I think anyone that doesnt see video games as a relevant medium like books and movies today, is either behind the times or just does not want to accept it. I’m saying that in general, not directly at you Stephen.
From my viewpoint, I don’t feel that I’m so bothered by the content of games and movies compared to real life because one is real and one is not. If I were to walk down the street and see someone be shot a cop, I would have a feeling about that. That would be terrible, because it is real. But when it happens in the game, I am not as bothered because it did not just happen for real. That was not a real person that got shot, its fiction. When I turn my console off it all disappears back into fantasy land. I understand that it was part of a video game, and part of the story telling of the game, and that this part also has an interactive element that I was in control of. It doesn’t mean I have a deep desire to actually kill someone. It means I can tell the difference between what is real and not real. I can pick up a game and not be influenced by the content of the game. There are some people out there that can be influenced by such things. The finger has already been pointed out at video games. And if its not the games, someone is going to blame a movie. If not the movie, its the rock music, or maybe Dungeons and Dragons. And everytime we hear those excuses we think those people are ridiculous. But why is it different when its a video game? Its because of the word “game”. And games are supposed to be for kids? I think video games have come along way, maybe its time the publics perception does as well.
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
@TeeCakes
Nothing you quoted indicates I’m calling for a ban or claiming games incite real violence. So if that is what you’re taking from those statements, please recognize that you are bringing something to your interpretation that I did not intend. Allow me to venture a guess that you actually don’t like seeing those comments made because you think it would cause someone else — outside of this blog — to call for a game ban.
Let’s get to the issues I’m trying to cover with this post and your take on them: I believe that you’re saying that, for you, virtually killing a game character can and always will be nothing more, nothing less, than eliminating some polygons from your TV screen or computer monitor. I’ve tried to introduce some examples that would challenge that idea, just to see how it holds up. If none of them shake you from your conviction, that’s cool. You’ve made your argument.
As for your challenge: You’re caught up with the idea that I somehow disapprove of games handling the same material that movies and TV shows do. That’s an idea you’ve introduced. It’s not in anything I wrote. What does it say when society has double standards about games vs. movies? It says that society has double-standards. We know this. It’s a tired conversation.
I care today about gamers talking about games and what the stuff in games means to them. I’m not looking for anyone to apologize, to retract statements or anything of the sort. If someone says games are all polygons to them, cool. If someone says, as they did in another thread on this blog, that they can’t bring themselves to play “GTA” because their dad is a cop, that’s cool with me too. But the difference in those reactions is interesting and worth exploring.
I appreciate your sharing your take and am glad we can keep the conversation going in a place that’s set away from people who just want to attack games or gamers.
I’ll shut up now, because I don’t want to smother the discussion.
Thanks to everyone for keeping this conversation sophisticated.
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
The issue is that the trailer (and by extension the game) use iconography that was developed over hundreds of years to oppress a people. Slavery had a visual language that included depicting black people as inhuman, unthinking monsters, and to repeat that language and feign ignorance is unacceptable. Games ARE Art and are thusly engaged in debates that precede it as a viable medium. It is JUST a game is not valid. Potentially, RE5=Birth of a Nation, Capcom=DW Griffith.
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:44 pm
“Allow me to venture a guess that you actually don’t like seeing those comments made because you think it would cause someone else — outside of this blog — to call for a game ban.”
Fair enough, I suspect that is precisely my main problem with the open-ended calls for a discussion on the matter. It seems to have provoked some people to make statements such as the “GTA is bad because my dad is a cop” one you referenced, again I say this is an example of someone bringing their own perception into the realm of gaming than it is an example of the game promoting negativity in others.
I admit that my challenge should more likely be directed at N’Gai Croal than you specifically, as he feels that even an unclear mention of questionable content in new media is somehow ‘troublesome’ whereas a Law and Order episode about a white bigot murdering+raping little black girls (for example) can simply go ‘under the radar’ due to it be “just” a TV show. I personally feel that such an episode (I’ve actually seen it) does far more than any supposed ‘imagery’ one can convince themselves is clear in RE5, but agree with you that neither form of media should be banned/censored.
Anyway, I now realize that you shouldn’t be the target of a lot of my comments after re-reading your original article, since you’ve only ‘opened the door’ for the discussion to take place (much the same way that games ‘open the door’ for possible extrapolations of racist imagery), yet never actually promote a stance on artistic expression in games one way or the other. I apologize for implying that you were being unintentionally negative/critical of gaming.
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Videogames are in a sad state of affairs. Yes there is a double standard, videogames are tailored made for one certain audience. Of course, this focus is changing, but for all the games that take a portion of real life, and mix it into a game, the game creator risks of creating a characticture or a stereotype within their game.
Are all Africans poor starving villagers, do all villages in Spain have canibalistic tendencies? Of course not, but the Spanish in RE4 were not portrayed artificially as a Spainish stereotype but as a villager stereotype. The only person who can take offensive to that, would be someone who lived in a remote village.
Why are videogame females always sex pots, well not always, see Portal and Half Life 2. Females seem to be always portrayed, in the Mature and Teen titles, as the stereotype we see most movies and books, as weak, in distress or lost characters. Can our favorite hobby have more femme fatales, or heroines, where there boobs are innatural in size. Can we stop with the Barbie porportion females in Soul Calibur?
It is a slow change, but what RE5 has shown us, not everyone is content with the imagery and storytelling in games.
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Great article, great responses by everyone. I’ve really enjoyed the maturity and intelligence I’ve seen here. Too bad most of the internet isn’t like this.
Regarding Resident Evil 5:
Being someone who is somewhat politically aware of the problems that various countries are having, the first thing I thought of when I saw the RE5 trailer was of how sad and unfortunate it is that there are still places in the world where people are living in such a fragile state while actors, executives, politicians and oil barons are raking in millions and millions of dollars in the USA. Now granted, there is no moral sanction that the rich are obligated to obey. They live in a different country with different parameters and different opportunities. They don’t NEED to give a red cent that they ‘earn’ to anybody else. It’s just staggering to think that there are people in this worl who have made enough money to almost fund a third world country’s revival. Compare that with the warlord controlled regions in Africa (and elsewhere in the world) and you really get a perspective of how truly lawless and brutal most of the world is still in. Robert E. Howard (who ironically hiimself was a racist, but growing up in rural Texas in the 20s, what else could he possibly become by society’s standards at that time and place in US history?) wrote that savagery will always trump civilization in the end because when both states are pushed to their absolute extremes, savagery will overpower reason. It’s true in my opinion.
Getting back to the point, the imagery of Chris Redfield walking around this destitute, obviously warlord oppressed (guy with megaphone screaming at gathered masses looks like a warlord if documentary footage I’ve seen is any indication by which to compare) community instantly evoked fear in me.
Not fear of black people or Africans, but fear of the state our world truly is in beyond the precarious safety of the walls we’ve built up around us with commerce and illusion.
This is an issue of SEVERE human importance in the world that more people need to be aware of. I’m not saying we need to convert Africa into another capitalist state because ‘we have it so much better than they do’, but people need to kmow what the hell is going on in this world. Ignorance is bliss, but it’s also dangerous.
This is what I thought of when I saw the imagery. Immideately, I started piecing the story together in my mind.
Africa.
Suffering Africans.
Oppressed by a warlord.
Warlord is probably on the take from Umbrella or some benefactor of Umbrella’s demise (Wesker? If Chris is the protagonist in this game, he and Wesker have unfinished business from Code: Veronica X and I’d like to see the resolution.)
Warlord was probably paid to help infect this community with some variation of Las Plagas (the enemies seem like the people in RE 4 and not the mindless flesh eaters of previous games). It’s an out of the way community that the world has forgotten. ‘They won’t be missed’ would probably be ‘Umbrella’s’ viewpoint on it, and they can always cover it up by saying the warlord just deciding to off everyone in a fit of rage. Warlord gets paid for his troubles, the testing on live subjects is complete, they can move to the next phase.
Chris Redfield is probably in town precisely because he’s heard ‘through the grapevine’ that ‘Umbrella’ is up to no good here. Why else would he be in Africa for this game?
It all goes downhill while he’s there.
Now, granted, that’s a lot of storytelling for me to attribute to a game I haven’t even played yet. It’s ambitious, political, evocative and thought provoking. But I may be seeing something that’s not really there.
But then again, maybe all the people crying ‘racism’ are seeing something that’s not really there, too. Maybe the game is not even remotely about ‘white guy shooting black people.’
Capcom has pushed the envelope with this series through its brand of violence. Warnings of ‘grotesque imagery’ appear at the beginning of every game. Capcom is not stupid, folks. They know what they are doing.
This whole ‘Africa’ thing is something else that Capcom has to be given the benefit of the doubt on. We need to wait for the game to come out and THEN pass judgement on its message.
Barometer for the sad socio-political state in Africa or flat out advocate of racism and ethnic cleansing?
Give Capcom the benefit of the doubt, people. They know what they’re doing, they know this is sensitive subject matter. They will not treat it lightly.
But I APPLAUD them for choosing to stick to their guns and continue to utilize such provocative imagery. I don’t think, based on the CONTEXT of the game’s setting, storyline and situations (CONTEXT is a word you used, artticle author), we have anything to worry about.
This may be the greatest, most ambitiously told video game story of all time. This issue of the sad state of the third world is FAR more relevant than anything that could be conveyed in a video game, even Hideo Kojima’s message about man’s natural desire for warfare in the Metal Gear Solid series and of FOXDIE as a metaphor for how the desire to commit violence is eating away at us from the inside.
Becuse there IS NO METAPHOR in the RE 5 storyline, if it turns out to be what I expect it to be. It’s not candy coated. It’s poor Africans being infected with a virus by a cruel warlord for profit and corporate greed.
And if you don’t think this kind of crime against humanity isn’t already being perpetrated in the ‘out of the way’ places that the CNN/FOX generation has no access to, you are being wilfully blind. There is PLENTY of documentation and evidence suggesting that human experimentation by major corporations has already been attempted/performed in these types of communities. Sadly, it’s after the fact when the survivors take on the visage of the ravaged, the abused, the raped and the defeated that we are exposed to them.
So I won’t pass judgement on RE5 based on a five minute trailer. It could be a game of historic social relevance, depending on how the subject matter is conveyed.
Regarding GTA having a female protagonist:
I’ve never thought much of the GTA series. Not because I find the subject matter abhorrent or offensive. More because the sandbox elements bore me after 10 minutes. You can only pull old ladies out of cars and run over hookers so many times before it loses its sheen. And the storylines just aren’t compelling enough to convince me to stsick it out.
But with GTA, the violence ascends to a level that borders on the cartoonish. As realistically portrayed as it is, there is no sense of epic scope or importance to the game’s subject matter. To me, GTA is like watching videos on youtube where people fall off of ladders and make uncomfortable noises when they hit the ground. To put it bluntly, you aren’t playing GTA because you are compelled to experience more of the gripping story about African warlords. You play GTA to jack cars from old ladies and run over hookers. That is why you buy the game. To perpetrate cartoonish acts of violence for the sake of amusement. It doesn’t make you malicious, cruel or malcontent. You are indulging the dark side of your own internal sense of humor.
By way of comparison, even the most simpleminded RE player says “I like shooting zombies in the head.” They don’t find it amusing, they find it thrilling, a rush. GTA’s players aren’t hate mongers, but they are amused by the game because of the CONTEXT they choose to play it in.
As for a female protagonist, I think they should take a chance and do it. It wouldn’t want me to play the game any more than I do now (which is to say, I DON’T want to play it at all), but just as we put GTA in our PS2s for the darkly humorous side of cartoonish violence, I would like to see how Rockstar would have a female character go about jacking cars and running ove rhookers. What would her moves be? What would she say? What would she look like? Put it all together and how would it enhance the initial inspiration inside of me to play the game?
Sorry if this was too long. Great convo, jut wanted to add my thoughts.
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:18 pm
So when we killed on Spanish people in RE:4 it was okay? I think people need to start thinking for themselves. If games are all just fantasies I should be pissing in my mouth like I do in postal! Broad, educated statements are attacks that we should have to worry about from the mainstream media, not from an “insider.” The game takes place in Africa. Who lives in Africa? It would be completely unrealistic to have a bunch of white guys running around. Does that mean that there should only be black zombies? No it doesn’t, but it sure as hell means that there should be fair amount of Africans in the game. *?##@ me out all you want, but it’s not a big deal. I’ve never heard anyone complain about killing countless white people in the numberless games that you’ve done that.
Now if they made a game where you had to whip the Africans in submission then we would have a problem, but it’s the same game that Capcom has been making for years.
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I think this is a great blog post. I find it very important for gamers to discuss those subjects in which games are being held to a double standard. To just say “It’s just a game” is not a very good arguement to counter what is constantly brought against video games by non-gaming society.
Instead we should ask ourselves why have the urge to say “It’s just a game”. How is it that we know to differentiate between fantasy and reality?
The important bit in this blog post is why a lot of games are not just abstract. Games are not bought and played solely on grounds of pure good gameplay. “Fun” (I hate that word) is not only induced by challenge but, for example, also by the mentioned fantasy they can provide.
A lot of fantasy provided by games is a fantasy of empowerment. I think is worthwhile to challenge yourself why you enjoy this or that specific empowerment.
If we have already reflected on these things inside the gaming community it is a lot easier to face and counter (ludicrous or not) challenges from the outside.
That’s also the reason why in my mind M-rated games can be good for kids: If their parents are up to par and challenge their kids on what they are playing they are helping them reflect on their experiences and heighten their sensitivity.
And that is what maturing is all about, after all.
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Okay, let’s cut the chaff: Forget that it’s RE5, forget that it’s a game, forget that it’s a video snippet from a larger body of work. Don’t assume intentions. Don’t assume shooting. What we’re talking about is a depiction.
Horror fare, be it games/movies/etc, as a standard trope takes something mundane and puts it in the uncanny valley, making it creepy, “other”, horrific. (Go watch the Shining if you don’t feel me, son.) A video was created which depicted impoverished black Africans as horrors. We don’t know that they’re zombies, just that they lack something essential. They’re missing humanity. It’s a bit of art crafted with the intended effect to make you say “That thing scares me.” In this case, that thing is people, and like it or not, they’re black people. This video wants you to say “Those black people scare me.” Place the emphasis where you want, but it’s a Negro boogeyman, and that *resonates* with people, because the black boogeyman is an archetype older than any of us here. It doesn’t have to resonate with you, but you can’t deny its existance.
But you know what it all really boils down to? I myself am not offended by trailer, nor by the idea of playing the game… but you’re damn right I can see where someone else is going to look at it and say “Oh damn!”. I know why I don’t feel offended. I can respect and appreciate why N’Gai should feel offended. But why do so many people take offense at someone taking offense? That’s the real story here. Question your own answers.
April 22nd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
To paraphrase Freud: “Sometimes a game is just a game.”
There’s no great narrative involved in Tetris, which Stephen pointed out as NOT being a character driven game. Then there’s games like Mass Effect, which are *very* character driven. The problem is, it’s not a black/white (nothing intended there) equation, there’s a whole spectrum.
In Mass Effect, I’ve actually had emotional reactions to what I was doing. In my first playthrough I was a Male Shepard going the Paragon route. There were times though where I just wanted to blow someone’s head off cuz they were really cheesing me off. The game allowed them to get to me.
My second playthrough has been *much* more interesting though, as I’m a Female Shepard going the Renegade route. Now, call it what you will, but I tend to associate woman in games as more following the “paragon” route, so it was already kind of difficult playing what is essentially a “cold-hearted, ruthless bitch”. Add on to that some of the choices you’re presented with, and I’ve really wrestled with my “role”.
****SPOILERS*****
In the end of the Feros mission I pumped the Asari Commando for information and then decided to execute her. She calmly walked over, got on her knees and put her hands behind her head…execution style. It was very hard to go through with that because it’s not really how I am, but in the context of my “character”, I had to do it.
Additionally, in the DLC there’s a scene straight out of every comic book I’ve ever read. The bad guy has a bomb that’s going to blow up some people I’m trying to rescue. If I let him go, they live, if I go after him, they die. Needless to say, it was hard to ID the bodies. I eventually cornered the Batarian though, and decided he was going to provide me with some info. I fired a warning shot, then I clipped him, then I hit him pretty bad, all while trying to get information. Once I knew I wouldn’t get anymore, I executed him. It was hard at first, but by the end it wasn’t so hard anymore…I just thought of the fact that he made me kill a bunch of people and that he was now useless, and I shot him.
****END SPOILERS****
I bring that up because Mass Effect is NOT just a game. It was a character(s) that I inhabited, for good or ill. It pulled at my emotions, made me do things I didn’t really want to do at times, while at others allowing me to act on my own natural inclinations instead of what the developer thought I should be doing. If RE5 is like this, it will be hard to play. If GTA IV is like this and you’re playing as a woman, I don’t think it would work. The only reason is that I don’t think in the context of that game that they would rewrite it from a female perspective…I think it would just be another skin.
Personally though, I doubt either of those will apply. RE5 and GTA IV are “just games” for the most part. You don’t feel bad about gunning down cops because they’re not mocking you or begging for mercy. You didn’t personally just watch them kill one of your allies, or some innocent civilians. They’re not threatening, they’re just targets.
The same holds true for RE games. They’re not antagonists, they’re mindless zombies. They’re meant for target practice. Do you think the characters in the Dawn of the Dead remake felt bad shooting at the zombies in their rooftop game? The only times they ever felt remorse was when it was someone they *knew* personally, otherwise they were just an obstacle to be overcome, no different than a speedbump.
Maybe RE5 will surprise us though. Maybe some of those zombies will be less “Burt Reynolds” and more “Ana’s Husband”. Unless that happens though, then RE5 will remain “just a game” to me, and the zombies will be no different than an elbow block in Tetris…just another piece of the puzzle that I need to clear it.
April 22nd, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Just as an aside though… The problem with “It’s just a game” is that it references the word “game”. Maybe we should start saying “It’s not a character-driven narrative” or something like that which better represents the emotional involvement of the player?
April 22nd, 2008 at 4:37 pm
@ Doctor Procter:
“Maybe we should start saying “It’s not a character-driven narrative” or something like that which better represents the emotional involvement of the player?”
You can use that for making that exact point but I don’t think something like that should be used as a general term (maybe I’m misreading you though).
Otherwise you start to divide “games that are just games” from “games that are more than just games” and that devaluates the term “game” even more and that does not help overall acceptance.
April 22nd, 2008 at 5:00 pm
The Spanish in RE4 were not stereotypical spanish, slurring zetas, wearing flamengo outfits, and dressed as gypsies, as are the stereotypes of spanish. If they were, would spanish people be upset? Would some call it racist? Who knows, but there is difference in the RE4 and RE5 imagery.
April 22nd, 2008 at 5:49 pm
You know, for the life of me, I can’t recall seeing a single black zombie in the first resident evil. There was one in Resident Evil 2. I don’t remember any in Resident Evil 3. Or 4. So by the logic that Resident Evil 5 is racist, I must argue that up until this point, the RE series has been horridly racist toward white people, portraying them as slower, significantly less motivated, and less coordinated when compared to the black zombies of RE5. In fact, let’s take that a little further and assume that because of RE4’s monsters, we should never trust any group of Spanish-speaking people ever again because blowing their head off might actually make them harder to kill (damn the Spanish and their head-tentacle-spikes!).
Do you see the problem that arises when you go out of your way to look for racism? You can find it anywhere. Yes, videogames are a form of escapism (at least, I don’t normally find myself traversing distant planets in a space suit that turns me into a ball, but then again, I live on a budget). But is this game going to be the Beacon of Hope that skinheads everywhere have been waiting for? I doubt it. Although we still have a lot of work to do when it comes to equal rights, I would like to imagine that the majority of the Western world has come to the point where we know that the people on the Magic Image Box that we manipulate with a colorful controller-thing aren’t real and that zombies –be they black, white, or even a sickly green- ARE NOT REAL.
And I guess it stands to reason that no, the game wasn’t made by black people. It was made by Japanese who, due to the isolationism in their culture, tend to over-exaggerate any non-Asian feature imaginable: watch any anime with a “westerner” character, and you’ll either notice a bigger nose than the native Japanese, or a borderline-reckless “shoot first, ask questions later” cowboy attitude with little to no incentive to consider consequence. Japan doesn’t have the race issues that we Americans have because the non-Japanese minority significantly dwarfs the number of non-Caucasians in the U.S.; ergo, such stereotypes tend to be common in their media.
April 22nd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
“The Spanish in RE4 were not stereotypical spanish, slurring zetas, wearing flamengo outfits, and dressed as gypsies, as are the stereotypes of spanish.”
No, but they were backward rural european stereotypes. I do still remember that that did strike me back when I played it. Especially because it was also contrasted by the slick main character.
Now I am a bit sensitive to these issues because I have lived in, for me, foreign countries and have encountered cultural ignorance so I do notice these tendencies much more easily.
That does not mean I consider RE4 racist or its images as poignant as RE5’s trailer’s. I do wonder though if the developers were ignorant of that and/or chose to incorporate it for the enhanced disturbing effect.
April 22nd, 2008 at 5:58 pm
@ Mathias Belger:
Perhaps I didn’t make that clear enough. In movies and books there are differing genres, correct? Take movies as a great example. You have Dramas, Sci-Fi, Horror, etc… You also have Comedy, and a subset of that is Slapstick and/or Gross-Out humor.
Does anyone get truly worried when a character in a Slapstick movie/TV show injures themselves, or does something stupid? No, because based on the conventions of that genre you know that there will be no long-term harm.
The same with Gross-Out flicks. Is anyone really worried that someone will watch There’s Something About Mary and come out of thinking “Hey, maybe I should start using my boyfriend’s jizz as a hair gel?” Probably not.
Do those movies detract from more dramatic fare like Gone with the Wind, Blood Diamond, or There Will Be Blood? No. We perhaps needs to do something about that in games. People see GTA IV, RE5 and Mass Effect and assume that they’re the same sort of game and have the same sort of emotional impact. To quote JT, they think they’re “simulators”, like a good drama. But games like GTA aren’t “simulating”, they’re usually “parodying” or just plain trying to give you a sandbox to play in.
“Not a character driven narrative” is probably too wordy for a good descriptor, but I think it’s a start. There’s games that people agonize over, games that scare them and games that make them laugh. Then there’s games that impact them, and games that just allow them to blow off some steam on some meaningless (relatively speaking) pixels.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
@ Doctor Proctor:
I see what you are getting at and I agree.
I would suggest though that you make that “character driven narrative game” while also not describing other games as “just games”. Just to keep it clear that both are in the same medium (as “Gone with the Wind” and “There’s Something About Mary” are both movies) and one genre does not weigh above the other.
I think it is an interesting take to divide genres by what emotions/state of mind they play to or try to evoke. If one views RE5 in that light it certainly is about evoking a certain scare or fear. Those are strong emotions making curious with just how much care the developers will treat them here.
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:00 pm
@TeaCakes
People are always responsible for what they create. A free society shouldn’t hold them legally accountable, but to say that a person has no responsibility for what they create is absurd. Harriet Beacher Stowe had an effect on the public perception of slavery, and she is responsible for the message in Uncle Tom’s Cabin. We hold the makers of The Birth of a Nation responsible for its racism. Although it is an adult’s right to choose what they create and consume (and to choose what is appropriate for their children), that doesn’t shield anyone from criticism. You’re free to call someone’s mother a whore, but that doesn’t mean you’re not a douche bag for saying it.
Saying that gamemakers are responsible for what they make is not the same as a call for censorship. The game community is so terrified of censorship that it tries to censor itself. “Asking these sorts of questions falls into the FOX News mentality” (TeeCakes). All thriving media needs to ask itself these tough questions, without that, they’re just games.