I think the word "racism" gets tossed around by people who don't actually know what it means, but, in the case of the early previews of Resident Evil 5, I was bothered by the context of Chris Redfield - a White male - going to poor African (Haitian?) villages and gunning down various Black civilians even with the backdrop of a "virus/zombie plague". When I downloaded and played the demo yesterday on 360, I noticed that the civilians looked "less Black" and were mixed with brown and White "zombies" as well as the fact Chris is working with a Black Woman named Sheeva. I'm glad Capcom took these measures, but it beckons the question, does RE5 lose any credibility? Africa isn't all Black...there are plenty of Whites and Brown skinned living there. However, the poor villages are less mixed, and more homogenous. The people in RE5's demo didn't even look very Black to me. They really looked and sounded like Arabs - which seems to be the current ethnicity no one minds shooting at in a video game. Years back I played soldier of Fortune (PC) and there was a part when John Mullins goes to SUDAN and guns down a bunch of Black Sudanese terrorists - who are for some reason working with the White Supremacists to launch a Neutron bomb at NYC - but I didn't really think the game was racist...especially since Mullins had a partner named Hawk who was Black. But other people didn't see it that way and they claimed that mullins gunned down people of color, Black, Japanese and hispanic and that the only Whites he gunned down were inherently evil (skinheads and neo nazi's). So my point is, is it better that Capcom altered the game or does it even matter? Could it be that this is just "cultural insensitivity" - the Japanese making a game about Whites killing poor Blacks without recognizing the connotation? A better question might be, why are we spending time and money virtually GUNNING PEOPLE DOWN?