So I worked at a game store for a while before retiring the job to return to university, and while I was there a lot of my colleagues--after having convinced me to purchase Resident Evil 4 for Wii, which surprisingly turned out to be one of my favourite games--used to lament that Resident Evil 5 was vastly inferior to its prequel. A few complaints in particular were commonplace: "why do the zombies have guns?" being one, but also, even more frequently "Dead Space is just better." I wasn't entirely convinced, so while I put off buying the game, I eventually picked it up yesterday.
What's interesting is that--after 3-4 hours of gameplay, some of which I completed with a (mildly inept) AI ally and some of which I did in split screen--the game seems great. It may not be as good as 4--few games ever will be, and it would out-of-character for Capcom to release a bar-raising sequel à la Half-Life 2 anyway--but the essentials of the gameplay are still excellent, the environments seem thoughtfully designed, and its split screen support is admirable (though I could do without the racially-tinged imagery, some of which is--I'm sure unintentionally--vaguely insensitive in a King Kong sort of way).
Some of the complaints made about this game seem completely superfluous: yes, the attaché case system is gone, but the decision to eliminate it in favour of an item organization system that doesn't require constant rejiggering and is in-game was clearly made to reduce the risk of one player pausing incessantly in co-op. Yes, the game isn't as tightly-designed--the ammo rationing, for example, is a lot more slack--but again, the implementation of co-op calls for a different set of design decisions. Yes, the AI ally is questionable at times--but, in my own experience, it adequately performs the desired functions; generally saving itself from death with herbs and passing on ammunition when necessary. Some people have even taken to criticizing the graphics--which seem fine, to me, but then again I don't really care.
Anyway: why does RE5 get so much hate? RE4 and 5 are both uniquely enjoyable and addictive titles, and--even if the second doesn't expand hugely upon the first sans the co-op addition--they're still both the only two of their kind, to my knowledge (in a recent article, an IGN editor called RE5 "mediocre" after the site awarded it a 9.0--*sigh*). I'm sure in future years, we'll look back at all the dross released that received good reviews--Crysis 2, Uncharted, Halo--and realize RE5 is actually an incredibly well-constructed title. And anyway, it's strange to ***** about a co-op supporting version of one of the best games ever.
What's interesting is that--after 3-4 hours of gameplay, some of which I completed with a (mildly inept) AI ally and some of which I did in split screen--the game seems great. It may not be as good as 4--few games ever will be, and it would out-of-character for Capcom to release a bar-raising sequel à la Half-Life 2 anyway--but the essentials of the gameplay are still excellent, the environments seem thoughtfully designed, and its split screen support is admirable (though I could do without the racially-tinged imagery, some of which is--I'm sure unintentionally--vaguely insensitive in a King Kong sort of way).
Some of the complaints made about this game seem completely superfluous: yes, the attaché case system is gone, but the decision to eliminate it in favour of an item organization system that doesn't require constant rejiggering and is in-game was clearly made to reduce the risk of one player pausing incessantly in co-op. Yes, the game isn't as tightly-designed--the ammo rationing, for example, is a lot more slack--but again, the implementation of co-op calls for a different set of design decisions. Yes, the AI ally is questionable at times--but, in my own experience, it adequately performs the desired functions; generally saving itself from death with herbs and passing on ammunition when necessary. Some people have even taken to criticizing the graphics--which seem fine, to me, but then again I don't really care.
Anyway: why does RE5 get so much hate? RE4 and 5 are both uniquely enjoyable and addictive titles, and--even if the second doesn't expand hugely upon the first sans the co-op addition--they're still both the only two of their kind, to my knowledge (in a recent article, an IGN editor called RE5 "mediocre" after the site awarded it a 9.0--*sigh*). I'm sure in future years, we'll look back at all the dross released that received good reviews--Crysis 2, Uncharted, Halo--and realize RE5 is actually an incredibly well-constructed title. And anyway, it's strange to ***** about a co-op supporting version of one of the best games ever.
