Dissenting Opinion: Resident Evil 5

3/18/2009 7:17 PM | 7 Comments | Page 1 of 4

Scott Jones' review of Resident Evil 5 says things that need to be said. To his credit, he leads with an admission of his own white guilt, expressed in that quintessential moment when white guilt dawns: being shown "The Birth of a Nation" in some undergraduate class where you probably also watched "Triumph of the Will." Scott goes on to hold Resident Evil 5 to the same standards we hold for other forms of entertainment. He argues forcefully that Capcom's Japanese parochialism is outdated and inappropriate. These are good points, and Scott makes them in exactly the right place. There's been plenty of fretting about Resident Evil 5 up to now, and there's no reason to stop when it comes to reviewing the actual game.

But I think Scott misses an important point. Capcom's execution is indeed muddled and oblivious, but by the time you've explored the obligatory super-secret laboratory at the end, intentions come into focus a little more clearly. The creators of Resident Evil 5 seem to think they're branching out into politically conscientious territory by telling a story about how the Umbrella Corporation exploited Africa. It is a larger version of a point they've been fumbling with all along about corporate evil (corporate in the literal sense of corporations, rather than the existential sense of collective humanity). This point has meandered from a haunted mansion to small-town USA, into Europe, and now down to the Third World (it's interesting that Resident Evil 5 cut scene director Jim Sonzero cites "The Constant Gardener" as one of his main influences). Capcom must have thought it was being downright progressive. Here they are no more intentionally racist than they were intentionally anti-American when they nuked Raccoon City. Does it make the clumsy imagery any less offensive? That's for you to decide.

Have gun, will travel to Africa

But the more important point I think Scott glossed over is the thing that has taken me by surprise: the gameplay. Scott calls the gameplay "a solid endeavor," but he fails to note how it's unlike that of any other shooter. With its real-time inventory management, it even differs substantially from Resident Evil 4, which had a staccato routine of shoot, pause, manage inventory, unpause, shoot, save Ashley, do a puzzle, shoot, pause, etc. Why is Resident Evil 5 such a delight for a guy like me who adored the thoughtful politics and distinct pacing of Far Cry 2, the other recent game about Africa? Why am I playing through Resident Evil 5 a third time?

For starters, I love that this is a game about resource management. How much ammo do I have? How much stuff can I carry? How much stuff can my partner carry? Which weapon do I spend my money on? These are constant and important questions. Scott says these considerations took him out of the game, but I'd argue they are the game. The concept of survival horror here has less to do with horror than it has to do with the constant ammo shortage. There's really nothing scary about Resident Evil. In this regard, it does a great job of capturing the basic tension of zombie "horror." Zombies aren't frightening in the same way other monsters are frightening. They're not powerful, mysterious or even particularly evil. They're just inevitable. No matter how many bullets you have, zombies will keep coming. Ergo, you never have enough bullets. This is a central tenet of zombie horror and something that Resident Evil 5 understands beautifully.