Running from Race: A Resident Evil 5 retrospective

The accusation of racism hung over Resident Evil 5 long before its release, but with the game finally being released and the matter having been debated exhaustedly, the dust has finally settled. The British Board of Film Classification even felt the need to pass its judgment on the game,
“As the whole game is set in Africa it is hardly surprising that some of the characters are black, just like the fact that some of the characters in an earlier version were Spanish as the game was set in Spain.”
So, surely the matter is settled. Resident Evil 5 is not racist. But the controversy that was raised by the game is certainly worthy of closer inspection.
The initial images that sparked the issue were of the white male protagonist, Chris Redfield, shooting black Africans. Of course, taken out of context the image is incredibly incendiary, and was certain to cause a reaction. The fact that the people who made the game were unaware as to how many would view these images speaks volumes in itself. As the BBFC noted, the previous game contained Spanish characters, but failed to have the same impact, so the director, Jun Takeuchi, and the rest of the team naively didn’t see how these two games differed. For those unfamiliar with the franchise, the fact that the Africans had been infected by a parasite which controlled them would have been lost. There are a number of points that the reception of the game raised, and the topic is so vast that I will only focus on a few key areas.

Is it impossible to make a game about Africa without inciting the racism issue? Far Cry 2 also took place in a fictitious African country, in which the majority of the enemy combatants were black Africans, but the race issue wasn’t mentioned by any of the critics. There are several reasons that this may be the case. Firstly, Far Cry 2 is played from the first-person perspective. In Resident Evil you can see the main character performing the actions, but in Far Cry 2 the actual character you choose is never shown beyond the characters select screen. Thus still images of the game alone wouldn’t necessarily have the same connotations as Resident Evil. The character you control can also be chosen from a variety of ethnicities, although again, as they are never seen it is a somewhat moot point. Secondly, Resident Evil is a much higher profile franchise than Far Cry, and thus likely to be put under greater scrutiny. It was always going to be seen by the mainstream media, and therefore the general public. As such, for people unfamiliar with the brand, it was vulnerable to misinterpretation. Finally, whilst Far Cry 2 was fiction it was based on real civil wars occurring in Africa, Resident Evil is a purely fictional game. So, having established that it is possible to set a game in Africa, and that initial reactions to the images rather than playing the game is bound to cause confusion, what other aspects of the game invite debate on the issue of race in games?
Many of the people, who felt that the game wasn’t intentionally racist, still felt that some of the design decisions made within the game were inherently racist. Two particular points drew my attention. The first was that there was no attempt to humanize the Africans, or to show how the parasites had changed them. When you start the game and are walking through the town, there is no attempt by either Chris, or his black female partner Sheva, to converse with the townspeople. Whilst at this point they have been infected, the main characters are unaware of this. The other point was that the third chapter of the game is set in tribal villages. Here the Africans are portrayed in grass skirts, with body paint and brandishing spears. This kind of image again undoubtedly has connotations, and it is quite shocking that Capcom could not have predicted the reaction. The reverting to the tribal costumes is explained through a diary entry by one of the village boys, which implies that it is as a result of the affect of the parasite. This kind of image wasn't very helpful for those trying to defend the game.

Essentially the reason that many journalists have been frustrated by the debate is that the game never seems to try to tackle the issue or to project a message. Some people were happy enough to play the game and to declare that it wasn’t racist, but there is also a sense that a chance to provoke intelligent debate on a difficult issue has been shied away from. Certainly the creators want no part in the debate other than to vigorously deny any allegations of racism. Instead they have provided us with a number of provocative images and scenarios, and then left them ambiguously open. Indeed the fact that they didn’t try to say anything means inevitably the debate shifts to two other issues; whether the issue of racism can ever be tackled in a mature manner in a game, and to highlight the already obviously racist stereotypes that already exist in games.
Race is such challenging topic, and I don’t believe that a game will have the courage to address it any time soon. Games are so reliant on commercial success, and failure can have such dire consequences, that alienating or offending can have serious repercussions. As for the already established racial stereotypes in games, it’s curious as to why they haven’t really been challenged before, an example being 'The Cole Train' from Gears of War.

What is frustrating for me personally has been the defense of the game. Whilst the specific points that accusers make may or may not have value, the defense that it is ‘just a game’ is inexcusable. As someone who passionately believes that games have value beyond entertainment, I want games to take on issues and to provoke debate. If the medium is ever to be taken seriously as an interesting way to present narratives and opinions, it needs to embrace controversy with discussion. If it continues to run from race, the medium will forever be limited by the fear of commercial failure.









































































