‘Resident Evil 5’ has boiled down to a barbaric shoot-’em-up game.

Way back in fifth grade, I packed up my Nintendo 64 and humped over to the now defunct Funcoland retail chain to trade it all in for a brand-spanking-new Sony PlayStation. As far as my parents were concerned, my enthusiasm for Sony's hardware was based on gentle, family-oriented Playstation exclusives like "Crash Bandicoot," "PaRappa the Rapper" and "Ape Escape."

In reality, though, it was Sony's commitment to more mature games that persuaded me to jump the ship that Mario built. One series in particular has stuck with me from the very beginning, stringing my wallet along for more than a decade now, refusing to die off just like its iconic undead enemies.

That series was "Resident Evil."

As luck would have it, "Resident Evil 5" was just released for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. Upon picking it up, I immediately turned off my phone and locked my bedroom door, more than willing to waste an entire spring break reliving childhood memories and decapitating rampaging monsters with extreme prejudice.

Even those of you who don't play games regularly should recognize the name, as "Resident Evil" has grown beyond the confines of the gaming realm into genuine mainstream consciousness. The movie trilogy has gained a modest level of notoriety among fans of campy horror films, despite the fact that "Resident Evil" movies lack real camp value or anything

particularly horrifying.

Fans of the movies will be surprised to hear that the "Resident Evil" games dropped zombies in 2005, opting instead for faster, more intelligent "infected" enemies, capable of brandishing weapons and maneuvering environments more efficiently than their undead brethren. This change revolutionized the series four years ago, introducing an entirely new form of tension to grip players. Gamers expecting a similarly revolutionary change for the sequel are going to be disappointed, as what's here is essentially "Resident Evil 4" with new environments and prettier high-def visuals.

The most dramatic departure from its predecessors comes in the form of "Resident Evil 5's" forced cooperation between Chris Redfield and series newcomer Sheva Alomar. Whether you're playing alone or with a friend, Sheva will always be at your side watching your back and serving as a pack mule for surplus ammunition. It makes for a great action game, sure, but introducing a second character at all times effectively eliminates what made prior "Resident Evil" games so popular, the tension inherent in isolation.

What's more, the game has been tailored from the ground up to support multiplayer gameplay. That means no more extended environmental puzzles, no more long stretches of foreboding atmosphere and no more narrative build up of enemies or characters. Just shooting. Lots and lots of shooting.

As an action game, "Resident Evil 5" is competent but never stellar. Some of the mechanics border on archaic and the new cover system is stiff and extremely awkward in practice. Without the scares or tension that defined the earlier games in the series, I can't in good conscious recommend "Resident Evil 5" over any of the dozens of other, better shooters already on the market. Only long-time fans of the series will care enough to wade through the B-movie plot and cumbersome controls, and even then the sunlight-drenched African environments may be too blasphemous even for them.

It's hard not to pity the paradoxical dilemma "Resident Evil 5" has found itself in. The game disappoints mainly because its predecessors are such gaming classics, making "Resident Evil 5's" relative flaws all the more egregious. Then again, were the game not released under the "Resident Evil" brand, it would have undoubtedly been lost in the sea of similar action titles currently flooding the market.

My advice? Go pick up EA's "Dead Space" instead. It's way more "Resident Evil" than "Resident Evil 5" could ever hope to be.

Published:Wednesday, Dec 31, 1969