Resident Evil 5 (RE5) rightly garnered some controversy for setting a zombie-like game in Africa with a white protagonist. Emphasis on “like” because the original trailer left out many of the safeties of the zombie genre. The protagonist wasn’t defending home turn, the ‘zombies’ were intelligent enough to communicate, and they looked like normal, albeit furious, people. These safeties were already off when RE4 came out, but the pseudo-Transylvania with Spanish speakers setting lacked any context and thus avoided controversy. In part as a response to the controversy the situation improved through the inclusion of an AI-controlled African sidekick playable in co-op and made the bad guys look more alien via bloodshot eyes and post-decapitation tentacles. These changes underline the importance of the initial protests, if not for a reaction to the trailer they may never have been made. At this point, for the record, I’ve played about a quarter to a third of Resident Evil 4 and the demo of RE5.
So where does Indy come in? He gets a mention in N’Gai Croal’s the column in the June issue of Edge Magazine. It’s supposed to be out now, but my local Borders just had the May one. So in this case I’m turning to Stephen Totilo for the preview which quotes Croal:
And as Takeuchi went on to explain that the enemies with the grass skirts and spears were seeking to defend the ruins from intruders and that he'd been inspired by Indiana Jones movies, I felt like I once again understood where he'd been coming from. That a two-to-three-week trip to unspecified African countries and looking at a number of movies set in Africa alongside pop-cultural inspirations like the Indiana Jones series simply hadn't been enough to sufficiently educate him or the team about he legacy of the imagery that they were tapping in to and, as a result, they'd lost control of their message. That's my take on it, of course; I doubt that the man who sat across from me and thoughtfully answered all of my questions would agree.
If Takeuchi had used Indy as inspiration, he rather severely messed up the execution. Put simply, Indy doesn’t slaughter natives. In Raiders of the Lost Arc and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull he flees mobs but doesn’t engage them. He does kill at times one-on-one, including a swordsman while he’s wielding a gun, but those examples have nothing to do with the madness of crowds that Takeuchi is trying to invoke.
Arguably, the most relevant analogy might be the Thuggee cult members in Temple of Doom that are mind controlled via the Blood of Kali. The Brits do open up on them, but ultimately they’re captured and not massacred (the first minute of this video is from the actual film). Notably the Brits are fairly pompous in the piece and its the natives who Jones take delivery on the treasury. Another contender for the most apt scene are the tomb guards in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. However, in that case Indy’s group gets by them with the film’s artifacts, it’s the Soviets who perpetrate a massacre.
I don’t claim the Indy films are perfect by any means, but Indy generally treated the locals respectfully and was favorably contrasted to characters that didn’t. I don’t know how this issue was treated in all the Indy games, but that’s not what Takeuchi is talking about in terms of inspiration.
The problem seems to be that zombie films, guerrilla war flicks, pulp, and real far-flung locations were all raided for visuals and set pieces without any consideration for the moral content of the sources or of the result. The Resident Evil series was never really known for deep thinking or making sense, so this isn’t really a huge surprise (as compared to the Metal Gear series which still often doesn’t make sense but is quite philosophical about it). The closer this approach comes towards real world settings the more likely problems are to occur.
In short, I’d be rather hesitant about this director making any story or genre innovations without adult supervision. Not that he doesn’t have a right to make what he wants, but without that input the ‘innovative’ product is going to reflect badly on him and his publishers. The original controversy wasn’t overblown, it provided the needed supervision because neither Capcom U.S. nor anyone more knowledgeable in the lower ranks seemed to have spoken up prior to the trailer.
As I understand it, the idea behind using Africa for the setting was that Africa is the place where human life originated, and as such in RE5, it's where the story ends. It's also, as you find out over the course of the game, the real location where the RE story began. Incidentally, the main character of the game is also the main character of RE1, and these are the only two games where he was a full main character.
From what I understand, the game was actually delayed so that they could add more white people.
There probably wouldn't have been nearly as much of an issue if a black guy was the lead, either. But it's much better that they chose to use an established RE character.
It also took some guts to do that, too. There's an eleven year in game time difference between RE1 and RE5, and nearly any other game would have had a brand new, younger main character, with Chris maybe showing up for support. The fact that they didn't is just awesome to me.
It makes me sad to hear that the reason we got saddled with a crappy AI partner was because of reasons like this, though. What I wouldn't give to be able to go through the game solo....
Indiana Jones is really a pretty poor place to choose inspiration from for a Resident Evil game. They're two different genres.
Anyway, it's not surprising this controversy came up, but it's just too bad, really. Africa's such a unique setting for a game. I can think of maybe three other games that have used it, none of them big titles like Resident Evil. But after seeing everything that rose about it in response, it's pretty clear why they don't.
In short: Never set games anywhere but America or possibly Japan.
Posted by: Brett | May 20, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Well, Far Cry 2 was a pretty big release with a white guy protagonist in Africa. The response wasn't universal critical acclaim by any means, but I don't think there was much controversy either. Generally speaking, people liked the savanna visuals and wildlife. I think the complaints were more that it was too sandboxy.
I think it is harder to set a zombie game away from home without it feeling off. That said, I think it could be done, World War: Z or 28 days/weeks later style. However, it is much harder to pull off with a Resident Evil style game as I think those consistently lack NPCs/non-combatants.
Posted by: Greg Sanders | May 21, 2009 at 01:03 AM
Also, thanks for the comment Brett!
Posted by: Greg Sanders | May 21, 2009 at 01:05 AM