windbane said:
Of course I meant aren't, which is why I compared it to not being over WW2 when Star Wars used the imagery. I'm offended at people like you saying it could potentially perpetuate fears and prejudices when it's no different than the previous games and you are treating this one differently because it happens to be black people. What does it matter who raises a ruckus?! It matters a lot! If you are trying to be some knight-in-shining-armor for a group of people that doesn't freaking care then what exactly is the goal you are trying to accomplish? If we removed every single thing that might be offensive to someone, we wouldn't have anything left. I'm sure Star Wars was offensive to some people.
|
Don't patronise my argument like that.
I'm not trying to save the world, I'm just trying to bring another side to this argument It's too easy to just brush these things off and say that they don't matter. I wish they didn't matter, but for a lot of people they do.
I'm also not suggesting we remove every single offensive thing. Personally, I love when things are offensive when it's for a reason. I love it when shows like South Park are offensive because they do it with the intent of being ironic and pointing out how ridiculous something is.
The issue I have with RE5's imagery is that it seems to be done without critical intent. Maybe the finished game will end up having a socially conscious narrative that questions and discusses negative stereotypes and the dangers of mob mentality, but maybe not.
That said, it's not like everything needs to be socially conscious. But if a game uses inflammatory imagery, it should be able to back it up with some substance. When Spike Lee used blackface as a device in Bamboozled, he did it to make a point. If someone just wore black face because they thought it was funny, isn't that kind of inappropriate?
