Why you probably did not enjoy the Resident Evil 5 demo

I've played Resident Evil 4 30 times on the Nintendo Gamecube. Twice on the PS2. And 25 times on the Wii. Needless to say, it’s my personal favorite video game of all time. So obviously, I'm rather pumped up for RE5, which is not only my most anticipated game of the year, but perhaps ever. So when I found out that a demo was released, I rushed to my 360 to download it and played through it. I had my doubts about a supposedly adopted "Gears-like" control scheme, and I was slightly worried about the co-op AI, but honestly? It seemed to work fine. I really enjoy playing it (if it matters, I've finished both levels 27 times each).RE4 is widely considered a fantastic game after its initial release on the Cube, so I naturally had no doubt most people would agree with my sentiments about the demo being just a slight improvement over RE4, which is fine since it is just a demo. But if you're reading this now, you probably know this is not the case.

Reception for the demo is immoderately mixed. After reading other people's impressions, I was worried that maybe some of the things they were saying is true due to the large amount of agreement, that its control scheme (which is the main attraction of all this criticism) is outdated and "not nex-gen", and has been called flat-out awful by some. But this made no sense to me. RE4's gameplay is considered to be revolutionary and many have just simply called it a masterpiece in gaming, so why have so many people have been bashing the game with a nearly identical control system?

Possibly being one the biggest fans of RE4 alive, I did some research on blogs and forums that were mostly comprised of negative views of the game. Unsurprisingly, since this is a debut game on any Xbox console, most of these people have never even played Resident Evil 4, or any Resident Evil title. This may be the source of the majority of the game's criticism. Most people with a 360 are so hyped up on Gears of War that when another game with similar controls comes along that doesn't fully replicate the Gears control scheme, they brand it as bad. This is terribly ironic since Resident Evil 4, while not the very first game with an over the shoulder dynamic, inspired many other games with this same formula; MGS4, Uncharted, Mass Effect, and especially Dead Space and Gears. Sort of like how RE isn't the very first survival horror series, but was the most popular and influential one when it was first released, and was actually the first series that created the term "survival-horror".

It’s probably been said before in its defense, but it is true; the gameplay scheme is deliberate. Resident Evil today has a bigger emphasis on action due to the controls, but that doesn't mean the difficulty and tension from the original format is completely gone. The inability to shoot or reload while mobile helps escalate the realism of being attacked by dozens of savages at once with limited ammo, not making the controlled character unrealistically buff like Marcus Fenix who can take many bullets to the face and needs only 10 seconds to heal by just taking cover. People have argued that moving while shooting would be the realistic approach when being hoarded by many enemies (Left 4 Dead, anyone?) and while this does have merit, it’s surprisingly harder than any of you would think to reload and maintain decent aim while running around. Basically, if you have played any previous Resident Evil title, you would know that these games are supposed to be hard. If you can't handle that, I have absolutely no problem with that, but there's no use in bashing a game you're unfamiliar with because you do not understand how it’s supposed to be played.

This section is meant for those who have played RE4 and still did not enjoy the demo. If you are one of these people, you fall into either one of two categories. First off, if you enjoyed RE4, and if you played the demo without out having ever messed with the controls in the Options menu, go back right now. The default scheme (at least for the Xbox 360 version) is automatically set to the "Gears-like" control scheme, Type D. The scheme that mimics RE4's gameplay is Type A with aiming speed set to Fastest. Many of you will go back with these adjustments and find out that the demo is actually quite playable (with perhaps the exception of the X action button.....).

Now, for those who did fix the control scheme and still found the demo unenjoyable, from what I've gathered, a large portion of you are viewing the game from a completely wrong perspective. Many people have called the control scheme dated and primitive, and have said that it is time for Capcom to move on with the series to be able to be compared with other new series. Resident Evil is not supposed to be like every other new 3rd person game (a staggering amount of which took great influence from RE4). Consider many other video game series and their sequels across different generations or not; Gears of War, Halo, Final Fantasy, GTA, Half-Life, Super Smash Bros., even Pokémon. For all of these series, the basic control scheme has more or less not changed despite the series lasting 2 games, or over a dozen. And yet all of these games are more or less still regarded as great, with either little or no criticism of remaining the same. So to say RE5 is doing a bad thing by using 4's core gameplay doesn't make sense to me. The control scheme would be bad if this was a shooter, but it simply is not. It's been defined many times as survival horror/action-adventure, or horror-action, but it isn't simply just a shooter on its own. Otherwise, the game would simply be Gears of War, only in Africa. Just because you've played RE4 over 3 years ago doesn't mean you automatically have the right expectations of the game, and when you think you're going to get "this" but instead get "that", this is where improper judgment comes into play. If you can't play the game because they decided to stick with a perfectly fine formula and you've spent the last 4 years playing FPS's, I have no problem with that, but don't flame the title for not being what it isn't supposed to be.

And of course, there's the newest horror title that just about everyone is comparing RE5 to......Dead Space.

Now, I've finished Dead Space and thought it was a great title. It's definitely one of the freshest experiences I've had over the last year. There are many critics of the RE5 demo that say "Well, Dead Space allowed you to move and shoot. Why can't RE do the same?" The thing is about DS is that while it is a great game and I personally recommend it to those who can stomach it, it did not, contrary to some, improve upon RE4's gameplay. It worsened it.

I'm not trying to make Dead Space seem like a bad game, because by all means it is not. I'm just going to help you understand why I think it just isn't in the same league as RE4 (this section will be especially helpful if you've played both DS and RE4). They made it too easy. Yes, I found Dead Space disappointingly easy, and I’m not the only one. While slightly irrelevant, the very small number of boss battles was unsatisfying too me, especially since it seemed that Dead Space was begging to be compared to RE4, and while some of you may go with the cliché "quality over quantity"......well.....the bosses were really sub-par. While they were huge and hideous looking, all 3 of them were too easy for a horror game to really get immersed into and enjoy. Anyone remember RE4's bosses? Over a dozen of them, each one with their own unique strategy, were usually difficult, yet not overly frustrating, and were simply amazing to fight. This is leading me to my point of Dead Space not being quite as good as RE; it's just not hard enough. Just because a game has more convenient controls and is easier does make it more accessible, but since when is easier synonymous with better? I'm not trying to support the fact that survival horror titles should have clunky controls (and “clunky controls” is especially relative if you’ve never gotten used to the series), but they should make an effort to make the game make the player feel desperate and against most odds, not overpowered in situations that should feel more tense. Not that Dead Space didn't achieve this, but less so than RE4. If you felt that Dead Space was a more enjoyable shooter and felt scarier, that's perfectly fine, I have nothing against unbiased opinions, but to say it was the better survival-horror title just does not cut it at all.

To end off my rant in RE5's defense (please note that I said RE5, not the RE5 demo), and this did end up sort of turning into a rant despite my initial plan, do not believe the full game will be just like the demo. There are way too many facts that a lot of people are overlooking because of the hype this demo received, let alone the actual finished product itself:

-This demo is unfinished. I'm not trying to say that Capcom has time to add in moving while shooting, because they won't and they shouldn't. After RE4 reestablished the series and genre with its scheme, changing this already would be like taking multiplayer out of Halo, or vehicles out of Grand Theft Auto, or the cover system in Gears of War. It is now an official staple of the series that hopefully sees much more light in the future.

-Nobody knew what to expect from RE4, with all of the changes Capcom made to the series, and it blew most people away. Doesn't it seem like the same thing is happening again? And do most of you who enjoyed RE4 really think they can't deliver another roller coaster experience? Many thought RE4 would flop, but how many game of the year awards did it win?

-The demo shows off 2 very early sections from the game. It isn't meant to show and spoil some of the later surprises that it will undoubtedly have like its predecessor. To say that it's too much like RE4 is an unfair criticism. Which leads me to my next point...

-Being a lot like RE4 is bad? Absolutely not. The formula was used in only one previous game in the series, so why would using it for the sequel be a bad move? Plus, you can't forget all of the additions/changes in 5 to make it better than 4, like the 2 player co-op through out the entire campaign and the unlockable minigames, the newly revised inventory system to resemble the older RE games, and supposedly, a longer and scarier experience.

-The Dead Space demo is mediocre. At least, many critics, many of my friends and me thought so. I'm very glad I played the full game before the demo, because the way it was used to show off the premise and controls was executed very poorly, despite that the full game itself is great. So what does that say about RE5, which has a demo which is actually quite good once you understand how the game is supposed to be made and played?

I really hope this has helped you see why Resident Evil has remained the way it has been, to differentiate itself from other shooters and horror titles, and to help keep that original atmosphere and style of gameplay that has been done in the RE games. Here's hoping Capcom brings us another GOTY.