EA down on Wii, but not out - willing to work with Nintendo to make software sell

[NJ5]

LordTheNightKnight said:

KylieDog said:

LordTheNightKnight said:

Sherlock99 said:
A cheap rail shooter is not what i call a serious effort.

Where does it say it was cheap to make? Seriously, where?

 

It is a rail shooter.  Rail shooters are cheap to make in comparison to 'controllable' games.

 

But if that isn't enough...the 'new' story was very weak and borrowed heavily from Dead Space to flesh it out.  The environments from part of the first level and after the 2nd or 3rd level are nearly all reused from Dead Space so design cost is out the window, the weapons are nearly all stolen from Dead Space, the enemies are stolen from Dead Space, in fact most of the game was.   Design costs must have been almost non existant for the game.

 

Then is the fact that many areas are poor and clearly had little work done on them and just tried to hide with shadows, plus the bugs so testing probably didn't have a big budget.

 

Need more?

Try actual facts, something that says "this part of the game costs X dollars to develop", instead of conjecture. Lots of faulty games still have big budgets.

 

I very often disagree with KylieDog, but I think he has a point there... is there any reason at all to believe that this game had a big budget? Give me just one reason.