Fury as Riot Games Accused of Whitewashing Mel Medarda in Wild Rift Preview

The latest preview for Wild Rift, Riot Games’ mobile version of League of Legends, was meant to introduce new content and build excitement among players. Instead, it triggered a wave of criticism. The footage featured Mel Medarda, a popular character from the Netflix series Arcane and the wider League of Legends universe, appearing noticeably lighter than she has previously been portrayed.

Fans spotted the change almost immediately. Screenshots and comparisons spread online as viewers contrasted the new model with Mel’s darker appearance in Arcane and earlier game material. What might look like a minor visual change to casual viewers has been taken by many as another instance of Riot mishandling character representation, reviving long-running complaints directed at the company.

Mel Medarda Canon And Visual Consistency

Mel’s appearance has never been up for debate. In Arcane, she is presented as a dark-skinned Black woman, defined by sharp features and careful styling. Her look in League of Legends on PC follows the same template, reinforcing a character built around power, status, and political control.

The Wild Rift version tells a different story. Her skin appears noticeably lighter, a change fans say cannot be blamed on lighting alone. Other characters in the same footage retain depth and contrast, weakening that defence. For fans, this is about accuracy. Riot shaped Mel as a figure of influence, and altering her appearance risks diluting the character they so deliberately created.

Patch Preview Backlash And Fan Response

The Patch 7.0 preview landed and the backlash was immediate. Fans flooded social media with side by side images, accusing Riot of lightening Mel Medarda’s skin tone and urging others to take action. Calls to file support tickets spread quickly, while comment sections filled with demands for a fix before release rather than a quiet update later.

The anger has gathered pace because players say they have seen this before. Wild Rift has faced similar rows in the past, with complaints often met by slow responses or none at all. As of publication, Riot has yet to comment. That silence has only fuelled frustration, with fans warning the studio has little time left to act before the January 22 launch.

at what point does the repeated lightening of brown, black and dark-skinned champions in wild rift stop being a mistake and start being a pattern?

mel’s model is noticeably lighter than her canon appearance. this keeps happening, and it’s never addressed. when will this be… pic.twitter.com/Oi4HFKrTdN

— momo (@medardra) January 8, 2026

Misogynoir Marketability And A Repeated Pattern

Another comparison continues to surface. Ambessa Medarda, Mel’s mother, is portrayed as fierce, militaristic, and domineering within the story. In game, she appears with a clearly dark skin tone. Mel, by contrast, is framed as polished, diplomatic, and restrained, yet appears noticeably lighter in the same footage.

The pattern shows long-standing market assumptions that push softer, traditionally feminine characters closer to whiteness while allowing harsher, more aggressive figures to remain unambiguously dark.

Several darker-skinned champions have faced similar treatment in Wild Rift, prompting repeated complaints from players. Characters such as Sivir and Nidalee have appeared noticeably lighter in mobile splash art and in-game models compared with their established designs on PC. Fans also point to Sett and Viego, where mobile versions softened skin tone and facial detail even after earlier backlash. Players say each example adds weight to the argument that these changes follow a pattern rather than isolated errors Riot has yet to correct.

The issue may seem minor beside bigger stories, but details matter. Mel’s model sits where creative choice meets bias. Riot still has time to correct it before launch. Acting now would show respect for the source material and the audience watching closely. Failing to do so would reinforce the criticism that this is no longer a one-off mistake.