Gamers didn’t do themselves any favors by refusing to see the validity of Platt’s complaint. The less-helpful commenters accused Platt herself 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.

Newsweek’s technical writer and editor, N’Gai Croal — an African-American — recently explained the controversy this way to MTV’s Multiplayer blog: “It’s not as simple as saying, ‘Oh, they shot Spanish zombies in Resident Evil 4, and now black zombies and that’s why people are getting upset.’ The imagery is not the same. It doesn’t carry the same history; it doesn’t carry the same weight.”

In other words, by failing to acknowledge the troublesome overtones of the trailer, gamers were in effect shutting their eyes to historical follies by colonial powers in such places as Africa and the Caribbean. And whether or not gamers recognized the potential offensiveness of the trailer’s imagery, it was offensive to some. In the end, the larger issue wasn’t so much whether the trailer actually was racist — it was that gamers didn’t seem interested in finding out.

THE BLAME GAME: The creators of Resident Evil 5 may have meant well, but their white-shooter-vs.-black-zombie theme created a firestorm.

Artfully played
In 2005, Democratic New York Senator Hillary Clinton, along with co-sponsors Independent Connecticut senator Joseph Lieberman, Democratic Indiana senator Evan Bayh, and Democratic South Dakota senator Tim Johnson, introduced a bill to the United States Senate that would have made the sale of M-rated (Mature) games to minors a federal offense. Although the proposed Family Entertainment Protection Act died in committee, it’s telling that the legislation contained no similar provision for R-rated movies. There seemed to be no doubt in the senators’ minds that games didn’t fall under the aegis of the First Amendment — that it wasn’t up to retailers to decide what they wanted to sell. For gamers, this represented nothing less than tyranny.

One of the most heated debates that tend to arise between gamers and non-gamers is whether the medium can be considered art, the way movies and, now, even comic books are. As one might expect, the gaming community is largely unified in its answer: of course games are art. They’re an expression of human thought and creativity, gamers will say, every bit as relevant as a novel, or a plastic crucifix floating in some guy’s urine. But then, when somebody outside the community criticizes a game on the basis of politics, subtext, or even taste, those same advocates respond, “Hey man, it’s just a game!”

These positions are irreconcilable. 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.

No, Thompson isn’t right when he claims that playing Grand Theft Auto IV is going to teach kids to go outside and shoot cops. Capcom isn’t trying to cash in on Western racism to sell a video game about zombies. The government shouldn’t impose limits on what software parents can buy for their kids. But just because they’re wrong doesn’t mean that anything we do in response is right.

Violence is overblown in some games. Non-whites are underrepresented among video-game heroes. Ironically, Grand Theft Auto is on surer footing than most games in both these regards. It’s true that GTA empowers players to commit violent crimes, but doing so attracts the attention of the police, which in turn makes the game world more perilous for the player. It’s an elegant risk-versus-reward mechanic that makes it much more than a brainless crime simulator. And GTA protagonists since the Vice City installment have been, serially, an Italian-American, an African-American, and now an immigrant from an unspecified Eastern European country. Far from trying to gloss over the diversity issue, Rockstar has embraced it. More developers should be taking this approach.

And more gamers should be pointing this stuff out, too. We do a good job of telling the developers what we want in our games, by voting with our wallets. (Manhunt 2 tanked; GTA IV is expected to be one of the biggest-selling titles of 2008.) But we do a terrible job of communicating to non-gamers what they’re looking at. If we allow our critics to define us, then we will deserve whatever they give us.

Mitch Krpata can be reached at mkrpata@gmail.com . He blogs about video games at Insult Swordfighting.