Quiz: The year in swooning

Match each of these games with the breathless excerpt from its review.

1. The Beatles: Rock Band
2. Batman: Arkham Asylum
3. Killzone 2
4. Resident Evil 5
5. Red Faction: Guerrilla
6. Street Fighter IV
7. inFamous
8. Brütal Legend
9. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves

A. "...one of the most memorable video games ever created. Not because it is particularly innovative, but because the mixture of shooting, climbing, creeping, thinking, laughing and simple astonishment works perfectly."

B. "There are very, very few games which truly make me sit back and go 'wow'. Among the slew of games that I’ve reviewed this year, there are only a couple that I really enjoyed playing, and continue to do so. [This] is one such game – even though I aced my Public Speaking and English Literature classes, words only slur together when I try to describe this game."

C. "This is simply a superb genre defining experience with two unforgettable endings."

D. "This action-adventure is so smart, so well-written, and delivered with such an obvious love for its source material, I daresay it is both the best licensed game ever made, and arguably the best game of its kind in our current console generation."

E. "...provides a transformative entertainment experience. In that sense it may be the most important video game yet made."

F. "The gorgeous graphics, the superb sound, the great (if sometimes twitchy) AI of your partner and the jaw-dropping gameplay take everything that was brilliant about [its predecessor] and ramp it up to the next level, making for one of the best gaming experiences ever!"

G. "This game deserves a place on everyone's shelf, from the most casual fan... to the most hardcore. No matter your personal skill level, you owe it to yourself to buy this game. [Its] incredible art style, rock solid gameplay, and infinitely compelling multiplayer make it stand out as one of best games of this generation."

H. "A fantastic game that sucks you in and doesn't let go... a seamless merger of technology and story telling that raises the bar for the industry."

I. "...the best console first person shooter ever. It will be bested one day, and that is as it should be, but this game has set the proverbial bar so high we reckon it'll be the king for a good long while... Hail to the king, baby."

1. E (New York Times)
2. D (Gamespy)
3. I (Playstation Official Magazine Australia)
4. F (AceGamez)
5. H (Gaming Nexus)
6. G (ZTGameDomain)
7. C (Play)
8. B (MEGamers)
9. A (Cynamite)

Friday Afternoon Tidbits

Happy Easter weekend, to all you Christians out there. To the Jews, happy Passover. To everyone else: hey, what's up?

-Have you played 2009's first game of the year candidate, Close Range? Like Tetris, it distills its mechanics to their essence. Compulsively playable, with a gripping storyline told through some of the highest-quality cutscenes since the original Ninja Gaiden.

(Okay, it's actually a satire brought to you by the folks at the Onion. "Incredible!" says IGN. You know what? It's funny because it's true.)

-Longtime game journo Douglass Perry takes a look back at Nintendo's low period, starting with the launch of the N64. It's an excellent read, with a veteran's depth of perspective. Perry, by the way, has started his own blog, GameInsano.com. Glad to have him in the blogosphere, even if it wasn't entirely voluntary.

Story time: When I was in high school, Perry worked for IGN, in particular N64.com, later IGN64.com. The site had a nightly mailbag feature that went up around 9 PM Eastern time. I wrote to them every day, and they published my letters often, which were always signed "Big Mitch Krpata." People wrote letters about me in response. It was a lot of fun.

My finest hour was when the IGN team had a short-story contest, and my winning entry told the tale of Doug Perry getting kidnapped by Kabuki Joe, the much-maligned character from War Gods. They ended up sending me a copy of Quarterback Club 98 for the N64, which even at the time seemed like a boobie prize. But hey, they published my fiction, and so far nobody else has done that, except for Emerson College's literary journal. So thanks, Doug Perry, and welcome to the fold.

-Speaking of traveling back in time, a 30-minute video called "A Visit to id Software" is making the rounds. I mean... times really have changed.

-On a related note, if you miss John Carmack's .plan files, take a look at his story of developing for the iPhone. Maybe it's because I'm not as tuned into the PC gaming scene these days, but I feel like I don't hear much from Carmack anymore. This post makes me wish I did.

No, I'm not going to play Rage when it comes out, I'm sure. Not unless there's an Xbox 360 port in the offing.

-Ben Fritz has a level-headed take on the controversy about alleged DLC being included on the game disc. He's sensible as always, but something about it still feels wrong on a gut level. I mean, you paid for the disc. You own it. The notion of paying more in order to play what's already there is a troubling one. Moreover, one of the things I've always liked about console games is that you buy them, and they work. Everything's there.

Granted, we've come a long way from having to custom-code batch files in order to correctly run the DOS version of TIE Fighter on your PC, but there's still a DIY aspect of PC gaming that I find distasteful, compared to the plug-and-play of a console. But this console generation has done away with that. Now, console publishers ship a game that isn't done, knowing that they can simply issue a patch on launch day. It's great when a publisher or a dev can improve a game that you've already paid for (Burnout Paradise is a great example of this). It's problematic when they use downloadable content as a reason not to ship a completed game.

Another week down the hatch. As always, thank you for reading.

Friday afternoon tidbits

Been a rough couple weeks over here. Got injured while snowboarding (again), then got sick, and to top it all off, work has been nuts. Sounds like this guy needs some Rock Band, STAT.

-This GDC week, people have been buzzing about OnLive, the game system to end all game systems. I'm skeptical, and Richard Leadbetter's Eurogamer editorial, "Why OnLive Can't Possibly Work," shares my skepticism.

To put it as simply as possible, gaming history is littered with ideas that were ahead of their time. Online connectivity was part of the original Famicom. The Xband Modem promised online play for the Genesis and SNES. The Dreamcast had an integrated 56k modem. None of this stuff worked, because the necessary technology hadn't saturated the market yet. The idea was just right, but the execution was lacking.

Xbox Live didn't succeed because it was visionary, or even because it was executed so well -- it succeeded because enough people had broadband to make the product viable. In my decidedly unexpert view, OnLive is something we'll be looking back at as ahead of its time, for that same reason. But like Leadbetter, I would love to be wrong.

-I may be done talking about Resident Evil 5, but others are not. (Note: Saying I'm done talking about a game is the surest sign that I will write three more posts about it, at minimum.) The Zero Punctuation review of RE5 was so on point, it was -- yes -- scary. I like to talk about big-picture stuff in my reviews, but Yahtzee drills down into the details, and everything he said was dead-on. The inventory system in this game is terrible. Having to trade items with Sheva just to discard something is ridiculous.

Another thing that irked me is that, unlike in past Resident Evil games, you don't have the option of using an herb you find, and bypassing your inventory entirely. No, if your inventory is full and your health is low, you still have to drop an item in order to pick up and use an herb. The item that you drop, by the way, vanishes from the game world. Smart.

-Evan Narcisse at Crispy Gamer posted one of the best takes on the racial angle that I've seen so far. I think his smartest point, and the one that seems to elude the most people, is that the question of racism is not necessarily one with a yes-or-no answer. Resident Evil 5's imagery evokes some colonial ghosts. It's fair to ask what those depictions mean, and why they're there. We are still at the point where we're arguing about whether we should have the discussion, rather than having the discussion, but you can't force these things.

-Finally on the RE5 tip, Daniel Purvis felt that the game's action bona fides overcame all other concerns. He loved it. And while I can't disagree with his substantive points about the quality of the action, ultimately what it comes down to is what you want from a Resident Evil game. Daniel's post did make me think that I might have been more receptive if RE5 were called something else entirely. Above all, there's a certain mood I'm looking for when I play a game in this series, one that RE4 managed to retain from its predecessors, but RE5 hasn't. I try not to go into any game with preconceived notions about what it should be, but it's tough when we're talking about a series with this much history.

(Daniel's post also calls to mind, once again, the drives that motivate different types of players. But I digress.)

-I am not at GDC. It sounds like I'm missing the party of the year. I've been avoiding these things forever, but I have this feeling like I'm going to have no excuse for not attending PAX 2010.

There's nothing that a hundred zombies or more could ever do

Above: A Resident Evil 5 image I haven't seen all over the damn place.

Here you go: my review of Resident Evil 5 is up now at thephoenix.com. I feel like I've said so much about this game already -- for almost two years now, actually -- that it's almost a relief to finally be done with it.

This is usually the part where I say more, but I'm sick and I've got nothing. The plague metaphor rings ever truer!

Why Resident Evil 5 isn't scary

Above: I don't want to point fingers, but...

In Friday's Penny Arcade news post, Tycho challenged the coalescing conventional wisdom about Resident Evil 5:

...I'm still trying to figure out how the game isn't scary. I keep reading that it isn't, and everyone seems to agree with this thesis, but no-one ever says why. It's true that the game relies less on what you might call "pavlovian" horror - it doesn't ring the expected bells. There is no haunted house, for example. There is a marked lack of jack-o-lanterns, and black cats are rare. When I run out of ammunition and five men are trying to kill me - one of whom has no head but rather a lashing, six foot trunk of slick vermin, I know that I personally find that unsettling.

I posited a couple of reasons why it isn't scary in my review for the Phoenix, which is coming up later this week. But it's worth going into in a bit more detail, because Tycho's right: people are agreeing that the game isn't frightening, without really saying why. Then again, horror, like comedy, loses much of its impact when you have to explain it. That's never stopped me before. I think there are a few reasons why this game isn't scary.

First, it's light out. I appreciate Capcom's attempt to try something new here. There may be no reason why horror couldn't work in the daytime. Still, I remember reading long ago about how the daylight was going to be incorporated into the gameplay. The contrast between brightly lit outdoor areas and shaded indoor areas would cause Chris to lose his eyesight, temporarily. I even seem to recall that spending too much time in the sunlight might cause Chris to start hallucinating. That all sounds awesome. None of it happens in the final game.

Instead, all that happens is that nothing seems to be lurking around corners anymore. Everything is right there in front of you. The essence of horror is what you don't see -- it's about your imagination filling in the blanks. Being swarmed by bloodthirsty foes in Resident Evil 5 may be exciting or tense, but if that's horror, then we have to start calling every game that gets your heart pumping a horror game. It simply isn't so. There's another quality we're looking for here.

Another problem is that, writhing bug parts aside, the enemies in Resident Evil 5 now appear so human that they've climbed out of the uncanny valley. Zombies are creepy because they're human, only not. They possess a lifeless, alien quality that provokes an instinctive revulsion. But the enemies in RE5 just seem like a bunch of angry dudes. Again, this is a decent setup for an action game -- but it's not scary.

As for the writhing things that tend to pop out of the villagers' heads, they sure are icky. But in Resident Evil 4, they were surprising. We already didn't understand why the villagers were attacking us, and then we really didn't know what the hell these things were that were popping out of them. In RE5, we enter the game with this knowledge. Therefore it's not surprising, and worse still, we understand what's happening and why. That cuts horror off at the knees.

There's one factor more than any other that makes Resident Evil 5 less scary than many of its predecessors. It's having a partner. That changes the entire calculus. In other Resident Evil games, back to the first one, you may have had allies in the game world, but you spent most of your time cut off from any hope of assistance. In the new one, you've got somebody at your side the whole time. She bails you out of tough spots, and can even revive you when you're about to die. Once again, this is pretty neat for an action game. But it changes everything about a horror game.

When I played Resident Evil 4, I had this sense that if Leon died out there, nobody would ever know what happened to him. That was one of the scariest things I could imagine. Playing Resident Evil 5, I feel just the opposite: that everything's going to be all right. What could be less scary than that?

What he said

I was going to write all about how Resident Evil 5's depiction of race strikes me as less problematic than did the initial trailer, but then Stephen Totilo went and said the same thing.

Context is everything, and the trailer didn't have it. The game clearly sets up the premise, and from the get-go depicts enemy characters who are visibly under the control of parasites. And strangely, I find myself agreeing with one of the more common arguments I tried to dismiss: when I'm playing the game, I'm really not seeing skin color. I'm reacting to threats. If I were only watching the game, as with the trailer, then I'd be taking more note of what everybody looked like. As a player, it's all about prioritizing my targets based on what seems most dangerous at the time.

I'm relieved, because I thought I wouldn't be able to think of anything else while playing Resident Evil 5. But I've been able to enjoy it on its own terms so far.

Instead, I want to take a minute to talk about how dumb Sheva is. As computer-controlled partners go, she's not so bad. She sticks with you (sometimes a little too closely, actually), and is a pretty good shot. She picks up ammo if she's far away from you, but if she's nearby she gives you dibs. But for all the basic things that she does right, strategic planning is still impossible.

Mostly, that's due to her strange weapon preferences. She seems to favor the weakest weapon in her arsenal at all times, no matter what's situationally appropriate. For example, I decided to keep the handgun and shotgun for myself, and give her the MP5. That also meant giving her all the machine gun ammo. Yet if she had even five bullets in her handgun, she'd use that -- and then pick up a new box -- rather than kicking ass with the machine gun and letting me have the handgun ammo.

Even worse, at one point she was standing motionless with the shotgun, because the zombies were too far away for it to be effective -- even though she also had the rifle in her inventory. Since she had shotgun shells remaining, though, she wasn't going to switch weapons. That was unfortunate. It might be nice if there were some way to control her more fully, but then you start getting away from the immediacy of the action gameplay, and nobody wants that.

It's clear that live co-op is going to the be the way to play, and I look forward to giving that a whirl tonight. My concern now would be that co-op couldn't possibly be scary when you're cracking jokes with a buddy, but then again Resident Evil 5 doesn't seem scary in the first place. In a Venn diagram of the series, with overlapping circles marked "horror" and "action," this game would be nestled securely on the righthand side.

Gamestop.com User-Submitted Previews: Resident Evil 5

Above: The author, left, takes aim at Gamestop.com commenters.

I'm going to be honest with you: the user comments about Resident Evil 5 at Gamestop.com are a complete letdown. Nobody even mentions the racial angle. I can think of only two explanations for this. Either there aren't a bunch of mouthbreathers contributing comments, or the Gamestop web staff is moderating with extreme prejudice. Hmm, which one of those is more likely?

(As usual, typos are retained from the original.)

"A Customer" confidently predicts "The Best shotter game yet," declaring:

I think this game is the best shooter and the best resident evil game yet. It tops Naruto Ninja Storm.

Obviously, we'll need to wait for the full game to make a final judgment. But I don't see how part 5 could top my pick for the best Resident Evil game ever, Genji: Days of the Blade.

Readers often wonder whether the Gamestop.com User-Submitted Previews are an example of astroturfing. If so, "pcrcbros" isn't even trying to cover his tracks:

Hey, I can't wait to have this game. Its the best. I love the graphics, and i always buy my games at gamestop. Its the best place to buy games.

This guy is cheerier than a Labrador Retriever. I would love to have such a sunny disposition. Imagine how great life would be if you were as happy as this guy. "Oh man, I'm eating Cheerios for breakfast. I love Cheerios. Now I'm putting on some pants. These are the best things you can wear on your legs."

Not to be outdone, "Toyocelica" says all exclamation points must go:

The game graphics looks awsome!
The game play is good, it changed a little, but I like how you can now quickly change weapons and assign items to your D-pad.
Overall the game looks like its going to be great!

I played the demo and cannot wait to play the game!

I got my copy reserved!

If your a resident evil fan, this is definitely a most!

Even if your not a Resident Evil fan, you would like this action/horror game!

I picture Toyocelica typing the first line, and then leaning back in his chair, puffing on a pipe. For several minutes, he gazes out the window onto a heath. Then, a devilish half-smile forms on his face. He leans forward, hits "enter" twice -- with deliberate, forceful strokes -- and bangs out the next line. The process of creation begins anew.

"King Games Version" didn't say anything worthy of ridicule. I just wanted to give his username a shout-out.

"A Customer" unveils a twist ending you'll have to see to believe:

the controls suck. First off you have to hold down the ‘x’ button to run which does not allow you to look around while running. This makes it extremely hard to see where you’re going, especially while you are trying to run away from zombies. Second when you draw your weapon or knife you cannot move your character. This makes it difficult when you are trying to kill the zombies with your knife because you have to run up to the zombie then pull your knife out to attack which takes a second to draw it out. Hopefully when they release the full version they fix the controls, because as it stands now this is on the bottom of my list to get.
Overall great game.

Angling for a job with GamePro, I see.

"EvilAngelSora" reminds me why I started doing this in the first place:

The fact it has two players online and co-op will keep this game alive and probably get a high score, and im hoping a 10 out of 10. The weapons are nicely done and the enviorment is stunning, and giving your partner advantages over the zombies makes this heart stopper even more funner. Co-op with your friend or computer makes you use teamwork or the optional DEATH. This game throws in team work actully making both players stay near and helping eachother instead of being able to leave them. This game is certianly a NOT MISS, MUST BUY, GAME OF THE YEAR, EDITORS CHOICE, A MUST GET AN AWARD. I clap chearfully to the makers of this game. Great job Capcom.

And reminds me, too, that no joke I could make would ever top the unintentional hilarity of these commenters. Bless their hearts.

I want to break free

Now that I've had a chance to play through both levels of the Resident Evil 5 demo, I think I share some of the concerns you guys expressed, but after a while the whole thing started to make a little more sense. The controls still are slow, but cranked up to the "fastest" setting, they seem adequate. I mean, Resident Evil games have always been slow. This one's at least on par with the fourth. I'm wondering if the transition from Left 4 Dead to Resident Evil 5 is to blame. They seem similar on the surface, but play so differently.

So far, I like the ammo allocation. It seems like you can only find enough ammo to last if you keep moving. It's all over the place, in crates, drawers, and barrels, but you have to overcome your natural tendency to bunker down when threats are coming from all angles. And it really does change the whole dynamic when you have to divide resources between teammates. The essence of survival horror is feeling like you don't have what you need to survive, and then finding that you just barely do.

In the first level, the AI partner seemed great: always watching my back, always quick with the ammo re-up. But not much was asked of her there. Against the chainsaw guy in the second level, you need a plan of attack. That's much easier with a live partner. Our strategy was simple but effective: we leapfrogged one another past the barrels, shooting them in turn as our enemy pursued us. After that, it didn't take too many headshots and frag grenades to put him down. Although I hope the full game has more of these kinds of mildly tactical scenarios for co-op play, my concern is that the single-player will suffer for it. We'll see. Put me down as optimistic, but not excited.

But the point of the post is this: Do you think the mustachioed zombie looks like Freddie Mercury, or Saddam Hussein? We argued this point for quite awhile.

Resident Evil 5 demo

I spent only five minutes playing the Resident Evil 5 demo. In that time, I wished the controls were a little faster (even after switching them to "fast" mode), failed to realize that I could quick-equip weapons by using the D-pad, and got killed by a guy wielding an axe the size of a compact car. Other than that, it seemed all right.

I'm planning to give it another go, obviously. I'm especially interested to try the online co-op. But I'm reminded already why I usually avoid downloading demos. There's the opening screen disclaimer about how the game isn't finished and might contain bugs.* You're dropped right into a scene without any context or buildup, although presumably it's intended to showcase the very best the game has to offer. There may be important gaps you're not even aware of. All in all, this is not the ideal way to experience a game.

Demos can be good or bad, of course, and I can't say yet which one this is. But I was going to buy Resident Evil 5 no matter what. It's following up what I've repeatedly called the best game ever made. What could the demo do but lower my level of interest?

I want you all to remember I said this when I'm hooked on the co-op and playing it exclusively.

That's just me. What's your take on the Resident Evil 5 demo?

*If you've ever taken a writing workshop, you've probably encountered several people who try to temper expectations for their work by muttering something like, "I didn't work very hard on this," or, "I just wrote this last night, so it's not really done." And you think, "Great, thanks for valuing my time, douche." That's the same impression I get from disclaimers like this. You know, sort of.

Winter preview

Oh hey, check out this preview of the games coming out this winter. I'm looking forward to a lot of them.

Still on vacation.

Reconciling the irreconcilable

The story I've been alluding to for over a week now has been posted at thephoenix.com: "Sex, violence and video games." In it, I look at the merits of a few recent controversies, including the ever-present Grand Theft Auto criticism, the Mass Effect "SeXbox" flap, and, of course, the Resident Evil 5 trailer. I also take the community to task for often acting as their own worst enemies. The crux of the argument is that gamers need to be repping themselves better in the discourse, making a real effort at empathy:

The less-helpful commenters accused [critics themselves] of racism, of creating a racial divide where previously there was none. They decried an assault on Capcom’s right to free speech. But the question wasn’t whether the game’s Japanese developers had intended any racism (cultural ignorance is a commonly invoked defense among gamers), or why nobody had complained before when Resident Evil zombies had been predominantly white. It was whether those claiming free speech in defense of divisive games were willing to extend the same rights to those whom the games offended.

I also made one more attempt at demolishing the "just a game" defense.

To spend the bulk of your time and money on a hobby that can be dismissed with a wave of the hand would require an act of cognitive dissonance. Some games do have the potential to be transformative experiences. Talk to Final Fantasy VII fans about the grief they felt when Sephiroth killed Aeris. Ask a few BioShock players whether they saved or harvested the Little Sisters, and why. Such indelible moments may be rare, but they give game developers something to strive for. And they give gamers hope that the next game we play will also engage us intellectually, emotionally, and morally. I can think of no more belittling way to discuss this medium than to ever call something "just" a game. So let’s scrap that argument.

Think it'll take? Me neither.

When I began this piece, I had intended to lay the hammer down. This was to be the last word on the subject, and the spark that ignited countless fanboy epiphanies around the world. But that's not how it ended up. It is, perhaps, a good place to start, presuming that angry mobs don't do their best to prove my point. I would love to know what people think.

P.S. It's the cover story in this week's print issue, which is exciting. Pick up a copy, if you're local.

P.P.S. Also check out the brief sidebar, "Not-so-great moments in video game controversy." Nothing new or particularly illuminating, but that stuff's always good for a laugh.

Friday links

Still hard at work on that piece for the Phoenix, so it's been tough to devote full-time energy to blogging this week. But I've read some interesting stuff that's too good not to share.

-If you want your brain broken, Dan Bruno at Cruise Elroy is writing a multi-part thesis on the music in Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. This is an insightful, illuminating series that shows how many different ways there are to go about analyzing games. And it shows how important it is to learn about things besides video games as a way of actually increasing your ability to enjoy games. Very cool.

-The Brainy Gamer is putting together a syllabus for a course on electronic RPGs. Although it's a bit past time to enter your own suggestions, I highly recommend reading the comments thread on the original post. As someone whose experience with RPGs is limited to the Final Fantasy series, with one detour into Chrono Trigger, I was amazed at the breadth of the genre, and by the passion of the commenters for their favorites. Someday, when I'm independently wealthy and retired, I'm gonna play Planescape: Torment.

-This week marked Leigh Alexander's debut as Kotaku's associate news editor. Her first piece was a look at the strife surrounding the EA-Take-Two merger. It's nice to see this kind of long-form, hard news on a game site. It's the kind of thing you might occasionally see in the Times or the Post, but it makes sense that a site like Kotaku should be leading the pack here. I'll look forward to more of this. Also, other people doing real journalism means I can continue never leaving my house.

-Apropos of the question of race in games, Matthew Gallant is posting an essay about race and rock 'n' roll in the 1950s. It's always easier to see this stuff as an historical artifact, but there's a lot of relevance to today's culture. 50 years is not a long time.

-Bill Harris on how the Resident Evil 5 trailer should have been done.

-Magical Wasteland feels sympathy for games writers. Part of what makes blogging great is that you're not beholden to publishers or PR folks. And I can't say how grateful I am to be reviewing games for a publication like the Phoenix, which doesn't depend on ads from game companies and therefore gives me wide latitude to bash a game if I need to. On the other hand, I certainly don't have any "access, favor, or discretion," to borrow from Deadspin. The guys at Gamespot and IGN must be walking a tightrope at all times -- Matt Cassamassina needs those chummy Perrin Kaplan interviews. I also nearly jumped at a chance to apply for one of those Gamespot positions recently, before I realized that I didn't want to work 60-hour weeks. One game a week is all right with me.

-Not games related, but I've been reading Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku, and it's alternately thrilling and terrifying. The universe (multiverse?) is a strange, strange place.

It's not just gamers

Lest you think the majority reaction to the Resident Evil 5 trailer is unique to the gaming community, Ryan pointed out the latest column by the ESPN ombudsman. She's discussing reader feedback when issues of race and sports intersect:

From my earliest days on this job, I noticed that whenever race was introduced into the discussion of sports -- whether on TV or ESPN.com, whether through polls, town hall specials, opinion shows or columns -- I would receive mail accusing ESPN of fueling or even creating racial divides in an attempt to drive ratings or page views.

The first time I noticed this reaction was in the weeks surrounding the 2007 Super Bowl, when I read mail from viewers who thought ESPN had made too much of two black coaches leading teams to the NFL championship game. That so many viewers thought ESPN was making a big deal of nothing surprised me greatly, because from the vantage point of my advanced age, this historic first was unquestionably a big deal.

I didn't know whether to feel encouraged that younger fans thought race was a nonfactor, or discouraged that history I still think of as recent and relevant seemed so ancient to them. At the time, I wished ESPN had presented more context for understanding the significance of this first.

Substitute everything about the Super Bowl with Resident Evil 5, and you basically have what we've been dealing with recently. On one hand, I'm a bit relieved that these sentiments aren't confined to the gaming community. We're not uniquely oblivious. But on the other hand, it's probably worse that it's so widespread.

Let's not overlook the generational component to this. Far from wanting to have an open, national conversation about race, it seems the younger generation wants to ignore the very idea of race itself. This is probably a better attitude than some that have prevailed in the past, but it's still not, you know, a good thing.

In the past week, I've read numerous thoughtful and sensitive posts about RE5 and racism more broadly, but Leigh Alexander made one point that I think is especially worth repeating: "Racism attacks differences; tolerance embraces them. The idea that tolerance means we're all utterly the same is fallacious; progress means to value equally the unique experiences of different cultures or ethnic groups."

We can't sweep under the rug the uglier parts of our shared heritage. We shouldn't. We should learn from them. To go back to that ESPN.com column, the ombudsman started off by talking about the uniformly positive praise she'd received about a documentary ESPN had produced called Black Magic, which was about black college basketball in the civil rights era. For whatever reason, when it was presented in a purely historical context, viewers did not accuse the network of "playing the race card" or seeing issues of race where none existed. Yet they're so certain that anybody who speaks about racial issues today is doing the same thing. Why?

The ombudsman seems to get to it in her conclusion:

The harsh reality is that unless ESPN's handling of race-related issues is near perfect, as it was with "Black Magic," it is not likely to get credit for trying. ESPN will keep encountering a phenomenon that has been dubbed "white fatigue" -- an impatience that wishfully equates issue-exhaustion with issue-resolution.

It should not take an elaborately researched two-part, four-hour, commercial-free primetime documentary to remove the rancor from the discussion of the intertwined history of sports and race in America. Columnists should not have to face "fire her" campaigns for trying to connect the dots between past and present. ESPN should not have its motives impugned every time it falls short of perfection on racial matters. The bar is set too high. The only alternatives are to clear it or take the lumps trying. Walking away from it is not an alternative.

Very well put. I think we face this same choice. As I said before, this controversy isn't going away. How we choose to deal with it will say a lot about who we are as a community, and could mark a real chance to elevate the status of games in popular culture.

As fate would have it, I've been working on a long-form piece for the Phoenix about videogame controversies, and the re-ignition of the Resident Evil 5 firestorm has meant that I've been thinking and writing about this non-stop for about a week now. I look forward to sharing this story when it runs in another week or two, but until then, I hope this is the last I have to say about it.

I mean, we're supposed to be having fun here, too.

N'Gai speak

You listen.


Look: This Resident Evil 5 controversy isn't going away. The sizable segment of the gaming community that wants it to be simply a non-issue will not find their wishes granted. In fact, N'Gai is more charitable than I am to those who took the post-racial approach to the issue:

There was a lot of imagery in that trailer that dovetailed with classic racist imagery. What was not funny, but sort of interesting, was that there were so many gamers who could not at all see it. Like literally couldn’t see it. So how could you have a conversation with people who don’t understand what you’re talking about and think that you’re sort of seeing race where nothing exists?

I considered it a willful blindness -- but even if it isn't, it's still a blindness. I think it's important for people to make an honest effort to understand better the complaints that Resident Evil 5 is going to get. It's possible to defend both the content of the game and the rights of others to be offended. "Shut up" is not an appropriate or helpful response to somebody who finds this imagery troublesome.

My thoughts haven't changed much since I opined about the trailer last summer, and N'Gai echoes some of them in the Multiplayer piece. I don't think it's necessary to rehash them here. So without going into the specifics of RE5 once more, I just want to make this general point:

Art has always been controversial. Art that challenges the status quo comes under fire from one side, and art that tries to maintain it gets criticized from the other. The conversations we have as a result of this will help to determine what we want the status quo to be, and in turn move the culture forward. Overtly racist portrayals of non-white characters used to be commonplace in American films and TV shows, until people got fed up and said enough is enough. We've made progress.

But there's this strange temptation to assume that we've arrived at a point in history where we've made it past all this stuff, despite the abundance of counter-examples. Forget about RE5 for a second: consider the Cole Train, or the "bizarre b-boy timewarp" of Unreal Tournament III. Why were those character choices made? What was the thinking (or lack thereof) behind them? What does it say about us when we don't notice racial stereotyping, either explicit or implicit? That it doesn't exist, or that we're trying to wish it away?

Art may only be a mirror to the culture that produces it, but it's important for us to look honestly at our reflection from time to time. Either you think video games belong in this conversation, or you don't. I do.