"A bunch of people out for blood" is a pretty general description, which is why I think that calling it "near identical" is a real stretch.

Is a lynch mob genocidal?

Also, what do you think of my first and third paragraphs? I don't see that you've commented on them.

When I first saw RE5 I didn't care, I don't even like RE, then someone brought to my attention that they were killing black people in the game and I still didn't care, eventually I was bombarded with information about the game and some standing points, I still didn't care; but even in all of my not caring I knew the that the fundamental issue with the game wasn't racism, it's that the desensitizing of killing people is just wrong, in video games or in any other form of entertainment.

It's really just because slavery only recently met it's end in the western world and racism is still a hot issue, most people are forgeting history and it's implcation these days - it's so sad but whatever, the issue here is that racism being the hot issue only highlighted the greater wrong, and that's that killing other human being is wrong.

The question is to me though is if this is due to the level of realism these consoles deliver; would this have been the case if we were dealing with 32 bit consoles like the PSX? (Not including CGI)

Capcom was not using real genecides for inspiration for this game. They were using RE0-3 and especially RE4 for inspiration. The biggest criticism of this game is that it's too similar to RE4. What happened in RE4? The same situation that seems to be happening in RE5 except it's in a different location. In this location, the infected people (pretty much zombies if not "officially," as if those exist in real life anyway) just happened to be mainly black.

The protaganist happens to have been fighting Umbrella and others since the original game, so he's a very likely character to come back. Would it be better if it was Carlos killing black people? He's spanish and he's a RE hero? Chris was most likely chosen due to story reasons. Capcom is telling a story and I honestly do not think black people are offended. I think most of the people offended are white people that think they are supposed to feel guilty about something that we're trying to get past.

Do you guys have the same reaction if some white guy in a vampire move/show happens to kill a black vampire? Should all monsters be white, spanish, asian, etc? No, that's ridiculous. The whole point of moving on from slavery is to forget the inequality and tell stories that are interesting. Capcom is trying to base their game in a reality so the player has a sense of realism when he/she is fighting a hoarde of infected people. When you have the game in a certain location you should make the city accurarely depict the kinds of people that live there. Not every game can be based in New York where you'll find every race.

I think sqrl has it right.

I don't know that I can express how backwards I find this. Why does it even matter where help comes from or what it looks like as long as it is genuine and altruistic?  Is it simply because it might make people self-conscious of their inability to help themselves?  I'm honestly completely at a loss on this and I can't address your point if it doesn't make a bit of sense to me which it honestly does not.

The only human genocide in RE5 is by a zombie virus that mutates people (regardless of race) into zombies.

The human genocide in reality is people choosing to brutally kill other people.

I completely fail to see how the reality of the later situation effects the proposition of a fictional instance of the former.  The similarity between the two is the geographic location from which all other similarities flow out of a necessity for coherent narrative.

To say making the game is insensitive to the situation that is ongoing I can understand, but to cry racism because of it is to me the very definition of a non sequitur.

PS - For the record I think RE5 looks pretty terrible, and I really have no intention of playing it let alone buying it.

Yeah not to be mean or anything, but that's because the argument is completely stupid.

end of story

anyone who has played any of the games understands that the outbreak started in America and more/less American charachters will be who it is throughout the entire game.

One of the most hilarious aspects to the dumb arguments "video games are racist and promote white people" is the fact this is yet another example of HEY MORON! it's made in freaking Japan!  So NO, hell no, this argument shouldn't even be brought up, and Kaz no offense, but how did yu even think of that?  and how the hell would a native charachter fit into the ongoing plots/storyline/charachter cast.

Ok. Let's put it this way:

Would it be appropriate to have a game set in a fictional American city (similar to New York, but NOT New York) in which one of your missions in the game is to knock down two tall, identical buildings (or towers, if you will) with a couple of airplanes? Oh, and you play as characters from the middle east. But it's TOTALLY just a coincidence that it looks like 9/11 because the enemies in the buildings are aliens or locusts or goombas or something...

Or would some people be understandably offended by that? I think a lot of people would be, and I think they would be justified in feeling that way.


It's easy to say, "It's fictional. You're just reading too much into it", but that's an answer that too quickly brushes aside much more complex problems and questions.

Shouldn't creators be responsible for the choices they make in their work? Shouldn't audiences be responsible to criticize and discuss?

For me this isn't even an argument about video games, racism, equality or social ills. It's simply a question as to whether or not the imagery in RE5 is potentially offensive.


I don't know if I can make it much clearer than that without launching into a pretentious lecture on semiotics and symbolism, and sounding like a total douchebag instead of just a partial douchebag.

To make that analogy work: the building would have to be infested with ZOMBIES. Furthermore, you'll have to point to a specific event that RE5 mimics. Is it Hotel Rwanda? Is it Blood Diamond (which btw had a good guy with a gun that happened to be white and some bad guys that were black...and the white guy ended up with a black side-kick!)? Were those offensive?

You can't just say "what if a video game depicted this very specific incident?" RE5 is no more offensive than RE4 or RE3 or RE2 or RE1 or RE0 or Code Veronica or Academy Award nominated Blood Diamond. The setting is somewhere in Africa. Some people are black. One of the main characters happens to be a white male.

When is the last time a white male went to Africa and shot a bunch of people, much less zombies? Can you tell me that? I'm not up to date on African wars so there might very well be a specific incident. Perhaps fighting against South African apartide? I'm sure there was at least 1 white guy shooting some black guys. You tell me.

Everything in the world is offensive to someone, we can't help that, but please show me all the black people that are offended that a game in Africa features black people.

Heck, if people protest over a song in LBP, I can't say this is a surprise, although I find it laughable.

Hey, if this game were set in the south and suddenly the zombies started trying to lynch black people.   You bet people would see it as racist.

The same thing goes with a bunch of zombies armed with machetes trying to kill everyone not like them.

As for the "Social criticism" angle.   That doesn't really work when they are just repeating RE4.  Just in an insensitive angle.

Also... considering the average writing of a RE game....

The zombies are using machetes.  The last time a bunch of africans killed a bunch of people not like them with machetes in africa was.... actually probably right at this moment.

Your missing the point.

But sure.

Also people would be offended at the above game.... even if the building were empty, ful of zombies and you crashed a plane into a building in Europe before.