Why Innovation Sucks

Resident Evil 5 is a betrayal. I have been a fan of the series since 1996 when the original game first appeared. Sure, there’s been some crap over the years (i.e. the first person shooters and the Outbreak sub-series), but on the whole the games have been fun. But with RE5 Capcom has taken the fun and defecated on it, all in the name of innovation.

Innovation has become one the watchwords in the game industry today. Another, equally heinous word is “co-op.” RE5 takes both as its mantra and therein lies the source of its failure. Innovation in particular is not necessarily a good thing. Just look at the classic example of when Coca-Cola changed its formula. Changing something that is good to begin with does not lead to something better. Unless you’re in an abusive relationship, change does not automatically equal good.

Unfortunately, “innovation” has become a too frequent criterion in video game reviews. It has gotten to the point where a game automatically wins points if it does something differently and loses points if it uses tried and true techniques. This is one of the reasons why co-operative gameplay has become so ubiquitous in games, even if the gamers don’t want it. Just because Gears of War’s innovative “stop and pop” control mechanic and co-op mode was successful with knuckle-dragging frat boys doesn’t mean that every developer has to change what they’re doing. But that’s exactly what Capcom did with RE5, throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater in order to appear hip and relevant and get good reviews.

Well here’s some news for Capcom and other developers: many gamers, myself included, hated Gears of War! We fit the demographic of the average gamers: mid-thirties, educated, professional, with a nearly-even distribution of gender. We like consistency in our games. We require substance from games. We don’t like games that entail pointless destruction or violence and we certainly don’t like co-operative gameplay. We grew up with games that provided substantial single-player experiences (games like, oh, I don’t know, Resident Evil?). We play games in order to relieve the stresses of our daily lives and to get away from dealing with people. We don’t want to have to interact with any more jackasses than we have to, which is what co-op games force us to do (refer to the classic Penny Arcade strip “Green Blackboards and Other Anomalies” for an illustration of this principle: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/). The point is that just because something is popular with a subset of the gamer population does not mean it needs to be force-fed to the rest of us. By attempting to do so, RE5 has betrayed those of us that have been loyal followers of the franchise.

The ultimate litmus test for a game is whether it’s fun or not. Look at Resident Evil 4. Yes, it’s innovative compared to the previous games in the series, but it doesn’t innovate for the sake of innovation. RE4 fixed the problems that plagued the previous games and the result is a game that provides a nearly perfect gameplay experience. As the old saying goes, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Instead of staying with what worked great in RE4, Capcom broke what was working and, as far as my gaming dollars are concerned, cannot fix it.