Resident Evil 4

Resident Evil 4 came into my backlog two years ago dripping wet with positive acclaim. The game's premise was simple enough; like any other Resident Evil game, it's part of the "survival horror" genre, which essentially means that it's like a shooter designed to scare you. Survival horror games accomplish this not just by having games played in dark places where things pop out at you, but by giving you limited ammunition, let's say, or the inability to save the game very often. They aim to get your heart racing by having you be so afraid to use one of your three remaining bullets, say, or wondering when the hell your next safe haven will come. And there are enough people out there who love that type of shit for those gimmicks to have become staples of a genre by now, rather than just tricks tried out by one game or franchise. I am generally not a fan of this genre. I like shooting shit with no regard to where my next box of bullets is coming from. I like my non-boss enemies to fall weakly and easily as I cut down hoards of them. The idea that enemies can outrun me our out-fight me in close quarters is frightening indeed. But the big deal about Resident Evil 4 was that it was supposed to move away from hardcore "survival horror" by becoming more action-oriented, ammo-friendly, and over-the-top with grotesque monsters. This was supposed to be the Resident Evil game for people who never wanted to play Resident Evil games, and, counting myself among that demographic, I went in with high hopes. And frankly, they just weren't fulfilled. I'm not positive what it was about the game that never got me excited and enthralled. I'm sure the Wii control scheme had something to do with it, but that couldn't have been the entire issue because I've played Wii-control-scheme games before. (Actually the Wii controls were even a huge pro in Sween's book, and Sween's played more Resident Evil than anyone else I know.) The game's plot and characters were nothing special, but they weren't bad, either. I think my biggest issue was the inability to move and shoot at the same time. Apparently this is a big survival horror trope - you can choose to run, or to fight, but you can't do both! - but it felt horribly outdated for a game whose initial release came in 2005. Why can't my video game character do what all other people can do - use his legs to move while using his arms and hands to fire weaponry? It never stopped annoying me. Being unable to move while aiming a weapon is fine when you're shooting a bow in Zelda, for instance, but in a game relying so heavily on both shooting guns and avoiding enemies, why add this false duality? Modern shooters make an easy and effective compromise by having gunfire be far less accurate while the player is moving. Running and gunning is still an option, but it's less effective than standing still. In Resident Evil 4, though, cessation of all movement is a prerequisite for firing your weapon. Frustrating, to say the least. And maybe that's just an artifact of gameplay that was grandfathered into the genre, and maybe fans of the series at large would have complained if suddenly you could move while shooting. I also have to believe I would have enjoyed this game more if I was able to strafe around while moving, rather than be forced to play with "tank controls," in which the only way to move is to move forward, and radial turning operates as a separate function. I'm used to more modern games, played with two thumbsticks, in which you can strafe from side to side and back up and walk forward all with one stick while using the other to fine-tune your view and direction and such. Ultimately I'm more forgiving of this issue; back in 2005 the two-stick movement layout hadn't yet become a true standard, even if other schemes felt more cumbersome (and they certainly feel that way here in 2012). At the end of the day, I don't really know where I stand with the Resident Evil series based on this one game. I'm actually sort of tempted to go back and try one of the older games in the series; although this game was praised for moving away from "survival horror," it didn't quite get all the way to "action shooter," and the result seems not necessarily to be the best of both worlds. You've got a game that's more action than horror, which I'm sure annoyed at least a contingent of fans of the series, but still horror-rooted enough to limit ammunition and have shitty combat controls, which doesn't necessarily mesh well with the amount of mandatory fighting involved. The biggest thing I can give credit to Resident Evil 4 for doing is inventing (or at least perfectly refining) the "over the shoulder" camera view that all of today's third person shooters rely so heavily on. Of course, that's more of a nod to the development team for introducing a lasting element to the gaming industry than actual gratitude on my end that said element was employed here in this game; it'd be like playing Donkey Kong today and being blown away by the ability to both jump and move from side to side. Groundbreaking at the time, but not necessarily a bonus in the present day. I guess maybe the "survival horror" genre of video games just isn't for me. I was pretty disappointed in both Left 4 Dead and its sequel, and now I've also failed to appreciate this game, which many have called the - not "one of," but "the" definitive - best game on the GameCube. Oh well. I really did want to love this game, but something about it made it just "likable" at best - which shouldn't be a knock on any game, but kind of is on a game so universally beloved as this one. I can't swear off the genre entirely, but for now it's not my cup of tea, and I'm glad I didn't load up the backlog with Resident Evil games before realizing I didn't love this one.