Taking Aim At Teh Haterz

"Why can't I aim while moving?"

"I should be able to aim and shoot while I move."

"They aim and shoot in the cutscenes. WTF?"

"Aim. Moving. Wah."

Resident Evil started off as a fixed camera-angle third-person action game. At the time, there wasn't a term for the genre that RE and games that would soon follow in spirit and philosophy, which is the survival horror genre.

According to Wikipedia, which is the greatest website in the world, because anyone on the internet can edit the information on it:

Survival horror games are distinct from action games or other horror games, where the player is unable to fully prepare or arm himself. In order to create feelings of suspense, the game is designed to leave the player feeling vulnerable, and thus powerful weapons such as rocket launchers are rare [...] As such, survival horror games are usually single player, in order to create the feeling of being alone in a hostile world. This experience is often magnified by giving the player an avatar who is more frail than the typical action game character [...] survival horror games involve gameplay that emphasizes vulnerability and a lack of preparation.

<sup>Because Resident Evil is a Japanese-made game, this means many things. First of all, it adheres to many conventions of Western horror/slasher films, as well as many Asian misconceptions of Western protagonists and their values. Then there's also the other stuff that's involved with the creation of any Japanese video game; ie. the child worship and, let's not forget, the super-Saiyan form seemingly every boss has, as well as every single character being some kind of acrobatic, kung-fu fightin' ninja, their every move accompanied by a 300-esque stop-and-go camera shot, as they decide to reload their pistols by tossing clips into the air, ax-kicking a zombie in the face, using the hole in the zombie's face as a kind of stepping-block, and then flipping through the air with their pistol behind their back and tilted upwards as the gravity-affected clip falls precisely where the character's pistol is and, lo and behold, locks into place. All that instead of just simply, you know, reloading.

That last part especially is what creates a cognitive dissonance in the minds of many a player, especially someone who has never bared witness to the utter genius and fun that is the Resident Evil series. There's been many complaints about the upcoming RE5's control scheme, these complaints surfacing as early as the announcement of the game. Longtime RE fans said, "another Resident Evil? Starring Chris Redfield? Yes, please." Even more hardcore RE fans said, "erm, excuse me, but I believe the game is called Biohazard, or '</sup>バイオハザード ,Baiohazādo', " as they fondled their anime pillows and turned up the volume on their PC blaring tunes from Naruto: Shippuden.

But the non-RE fans and nowadays potential Western audience all said: "I can't strafe? Or fuckin' aim and shoot? Fuck this fuckin' game, I'm fuckin' sticking with my fuckin' Gears, yo! Gimme another Bawls, dawg, I'm gonna fuckin' game as hard as I fuckin' can before Nate comes to pick me up to fuckin' go see Breaking Benjamin! Whoo!"

Or, at least, that's what I imagined their outpour of verbal wisdom sounded like. Which is odd. Given the vastly competitive scene gaming has become thanks to Xbox Live, I'd imagine that most of the Halo / CoD4 / Gears players would welcome that extra bit of challenge in not being able to strafe or run-and-gun, as we would say nowadays. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

I take these gripes somewhat personally, because Resident Evil 4 is quite possibly my favorite game of the last generation. Yes, I liked it more than any of the Final Fantasies and more than any of the Metal Gear Solids. It is, still, in my mind, the best-made, most satisfying experience in games I've ever encountered, putting it possibly (depending on my mood) past Call of Duty 4 or Bioshock in terms of games I was absolutely absorbed in. And for all intents and purposes, Resident Evil 4 should not be something that qualifies as "favorite game" caliber. I died quite possibly at least thirty times in finishing the game on Normal, Ashley is quite possibly the only life-size tampon with the ability of speech I've ever seen, and then there's that control thing.

But let's get one important thing out of the way: If there was no Kill.switch, there probably wouldn't have been a Gears of War. If there was no Resident Evil, there definitely wouldn't have been a Gears of War. Which means the XBL kiddies would be shit out of luck in their ways to kill time prior to inevitable rejection from state colleges and inevitable employment at Jiffy Lube in less than five years. Wow, that's kinda mean. Anyway, what I said is true. RE4 is, correct me if I'm wrong, the first game to entirely take place in the "over-the-shoulder" format, with the "zoom" being provided by the laser sight prevalent on every single ballistics-based weapon. Cliffy B (which he was known as at the time) even cited Resident Evil 4 as a huge inspiration on Gear's mechanics, feel, and tone.

I understand the accusations of Resident Evil 5 not being a "relevant" game, due to it's now-seemingly odd control scheme. But hey, Capcom did include a "strafe" option in one of it's control set-ups. And let's look at Resident Evil 4 and compare it to Gears, the one game that's receiving the love of so many a pimply-faced teen across the US. Gears of War is an action-based, military shooter, with the prime focus of strategy being involved in the cover-system, a mechanic that will never get old or less fun to play around with, as far as I'm concerned. Strategy and tactics lies in positioning and knowing when to lay down cover fire for your co-op partner, knowing when to split up and flank, and knowing when the best option is to stay together and pound a similar target with a barrage of gunfire. Delta Squad is bad-ass, but they're quick-witted and quick-thinking badasses, and that's the key; making split decisions to save not only yourself, but your partner's skin, as well. The 'Horde' mode in Gears 2 only reinforces this idea.

Resident Evil 4 is a completely different game. Survival horror games are each their own miniature lessons in economics. Economics is not just the study of the way money flows or the study of consumer behavior; there's a term, "thinking like an economist", which implies a person understands cost versus benefit. Resident Evil 4 is a prime example of that. Although ammunition is comparatively plentiful compared to earlier iterations, pumping your enemies full of rounds is a quick way to completely deplete your ammunition and leave yourself open to enemy attacks from all sides. The cost-benefit ratio also rears its ugly head in your item management, a huge factor in survival horror. Do I want to carry all these medicinal herbs, or should I ditch them in favor of grenades and ammo? Do I want this piece of body armor? It might soak up some damage I take, but is the reduced damage really that noticeable, or is it neglible? The rocket launcher kills pretty much anything in one shot, but I really like the TMP, too. Should I ditch the permanent weapon in the form of the TMP in favor of the one-shot-one-use rocket launcher? Decisions, decisions. Should I use my limited funds to upgrade my sniper rifle or my Blacktail pistol? I do use that pistol alot, but upping the damage on the rifle would save on the number of precious rounds I normally use.

All these difficult decisions you have to make are all elements that successfully make the survival horror game what it is. It's the feeling of vulnerability, lack of preparedness, and your character's ultimate weakness, that creates the tension in RE4. Sure, that magnum's powerful as shit, but you're not going to find that many rounds for it. The key, then, is using your pea-shooter pistol carefully, using the environment, and setting yourself up for damaging special attacks in the form of a sweeping kick on a stunned enemy. RE4's "tank controls" is perfect for these kinds of combat situations; namely, you are always fixated, even on the apex of your victory, on your limitations or what you can't do, as opposed to your strengths and what you are able to do. The guns pack a punch (in some cases, as the shotgun, a huge punch), and it's so satisfying to get a good punch in on a Ganado, but at the same time, it's disheartening as hell to shoot one of the chainsaw-wielding sisters in the face with a shotty, only to see her stand up while more Ganado's rush you from all sides. Because you are unable to sidestep, this results in your active and functional paranoia setting in everytime you encounter a new batch of enemies or prepare to cross that waterfall. The "tank controls" serve to reinforce your frailty in the game, despite your arsenal and supply of healing items. RE4 constantly throws all sorts of challenges and, concurrently, rewards at you, sadistically baiting you towards that inevitable conclusion. The tension that builds and forces you to enthusiastically choose "YES" when prompted whether or not you want

The worst thing a game can do is become self-conscious and inconfident in it's trying to please as many people as possible. People with personality disorders aren't that fun to be around, and neither are games. Resident Evil's control scheme, despite how many "g4m3rz" deem it as "antiquated" or, more appropriately, "fuckin' old as shit, what is this, 1999?" is something that should be appreciated and applauded rather than condemned. Like the game itself, perception of a game is all about perspective. My perspective stems from Resident Evil 4, a game I still regard as in a caliber of it's own. It's also what makes strafing, for me, at least, a "take it or leave it" type of thing. Personally, I don't care about the strafing option that Capcom included for 5; I'm looking forward to the intense combat that having or not having strafing will undoubtedly provide. That Capcom has maintained their steadfast decision on keeping the "tank-like" controls (they did provide strafing, again) means two things, both of which make me very optimistic for the quality of gameplay RE5 will no doubt possess.

First, Capcom understands the oh-so important concept of active restraint when making a game. Like a painter, one should use their negative space as effectively as the subject of the painting, two parts of a whole. Capcom has heard the complaints and concerns of this new generation of game enthusiasts, which, by the way, seem to get younger and younger as time goes on, and I don't mean relatively compared with me. But Capcom has a clear picture on the kind of game they intend to make and the kind of game they would like their fans and potential audience to enjoy. The Gears control scheme, plus or sans cover option, has become so standard, any third-person action game I pick up, I almost immediately expect to play like Gears. However, standard does not necessarily mean "correct" or "most appropriate." Control and the strengths and weaknesses of a character are a factor amongst many equally important factors that determine whether the action of the game is a hyper-stylized, adrenaline-fuelled romp through waves of bad guys, or whether the action in the game builds to a slow burn, until everything goes to shit. RE5 is a prime, masterful example of the latter.

Second, on a more theoretical note, I commend Capcom for sticking with this control scheme, something that like Blizzard's art choice for Diablo III, has received numerous criticisms and complaints. One thing many gamers fail to forget is that our dollars and spending of said dollars in the purchase of games is that we are paying for access to the developer's vision, not the other way around. Certainly, game-killing bugs and UI-based difficulties are something a developer needs to address in sequels or patches, but for the most part, the vision and and execution of the game needs to stay consistent when the developer makes those tough game-building-or-killing choices. There will be times creators will listen to their fans (did anyone notice how Marcus never teamed with Cole in Gears 1? In Gears 2, they're like fucking BFFF!), but the key is in knowing when listening to fan complaints are a justification that you're doing something right.

Games are something that should be approached with an open mind. Subject matter is one thing, but our preconceptions and preconceived notions about the way we think things should be is a completely different, other thing. Likewise, I hope the Resident Evil Team at Capcom reaps the benefits of their hard work, and is congratulated by the gaming populace for their "unconventional" approach to third-person action rather than punished.

On the same note, I finally played the RE5 demo two days ago. I died within the first five minutes by being molested by a group of dirty, dirty not-really zombies. Needless to say, Resident Evil 5 really can't come out any sooner. I cannot wait.